discuss: Modified Artistic License (eNetwizard Content Application Server)

[Robert Samuel White]

Well, the PHP License is not in the OSI-approved list, this is true.
However, the disclaimer part is included in the Apache License (which is
approved), so the disclaimer should not be the problem.  And of course
it's not the problem as we have been discussing it...

You've brought up a good point, of course.  The disclaimer *should*
protect me (or a distributor) in cases where I (or a distributor) were
sued, but I have taken the time to read through all of the past posts on
this list, including yours, and the gist of what I have found is that
the disclaimer cannot be considered in a court of law unless the person
knowingly read the disclaimer, and from what else was said in the list,
it sounds like including it as part of the license does not suffice for
that purpose.  Is this still the general consensus?

Personally, I can't imagine a scenario where I (or a distributor) could
be liable for any damage caused by the use of eNetwizard; any damage
caused would be from some one using the package in a manner in which it
was never intended, but of course, that does not stop some one from
suing...

I've been giving much thought to this, because eNetwizard is entirely
code-based, there is no installation module, so I cannot very well put
it in what has been called on this list as a "click-wrap"!

There is, however, a configuration wizard which I am designing for it
which is used for the purpose of "configuring" the package correctly; it
will not work until configured with the wizard.  I could place a
click-wrap there.

You also brought up the point of "many licenses" as part of a
distribution.  I am giving this some thought too, because I'd love for
others to distribute my package in aggregate with their own, and I will
somehow make the config.wizard serve their licenses as well.  This
particular license is intended strictly for the core product, not
necessarily "extensions" or "addons" to the package -- there are many
ways to extend the product -- and these should fall under any license a
person chooses, including (potentially) commercial licenses...

As the disclaimer stands now, I consider it verbose!  I like "black and
white" -- "straight to the point" -- licenses.  The more words you add
the more you complicate its meaning.  I understand this is important in
some circumstances, but not for an open source license where I am simply
trying to retain some semblance of artistic control over the package.

How about an excerpt from the Common Public License...

NO WARRANTY

EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY SET FORTH IN THIS AGREEMENT, THE PROGRAM IS PROVIDED
ON AN "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND,
EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES
OR CONDITIONS OF TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR
A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Each Recipient is solely responsible for
determining the appropriateness of using and distributing the Program
and assumes all risks associated with its exercise of rights under this
Agreement, including but not limited to the risks and costs of program
errors, compliance with applicable laws, damage to or loss of data,
programs or equipment, and unavailability or interruption of operations.


DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY 

EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY SET FORTH IN THIS AGREEMENT, NEITHER RECIPIENT NOR
ANY CONTRIBUTORS SHALL HAVE ANY LIABILITY FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT,
INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING
WITHOUT LIMITATION LOST PROFITS), HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING
NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OR
DISTRIBUTION OF THE PROGRAM OR THE EXERCISE OF ANY RIGHTS GRANTED
HEREUNDER, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.


-----Original Message-----
From: Mahesh T Pai [mailto:paivakil at vsnl.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 3:00 PM
To: Robert Samuel White
Cc: license-discuss at opensource.org
Subject: Re: discuss: Modified Artistic License (eNetwizard Content
Application Server)

Robert Samuel White wrote:

> I agree that this should be changed; distributors of modified versions
should
>  be able to disclaim their liability as well.

(some semantic hair splitting first)
Rather, it is the disclaimer which should disclaim
distributors'/modifiers'
liability.  Disclaimers which are part of unmodifiable licenses should
not
require something to be done by the distributor/modify-er.

> The disclaimer is only necessary because there are people out there
that will
>  sue you for anything they can and I really don't have time for
frivolous
> lawsuits;

Disclaimers do not protect you from a lawsuit.  *Nothing* prevents
anybody from
filing a suit against you.  The disclaimer protects you in the event of
a suit.

> What would you propose?  Simply removing the "to the standard package"
part
> of the sentence?

No, remove the first 'Robert Samuel White' from the disclaimer. That way
every
person who is potentially liable, including Robert Samuel White are are
protected.  Of course, I am open to other suggestions also ... but they
might be
more verbose.

Re. PHP license, I do not know if that one is OSS certified.

Regards,
Mahesh T Pai






--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3