Question regarding certification
jcowan at reutershealth.com
Thu Nov 11 14:47:43 UTC 2004
Walter van Holst scripsit:
> I have a question regarding the certification process. Almost all OSS
> licenses assume that there doesn't exist a contract between the
> copyright holder and the end user of OSS since no consideration passes
Actually, that's questionable on several different grounds. Only the
GPL explicitly says it is not a contract; BSD-ish licenses aren't
either, but since they are basically just waivers, there's no need to
be (at least in common-law countries); most of the corporate licenses
as well as the AFL and OSL are explicitly contracts.
What's more, consideration is something courts can very easily find;
IMHO, consideration nowadays is as much a matter of form as seal.
Getting to use valuable software for nothing is probably plenty of
consideration. (IANAL, TINLA.)
> At the same time all OSS licenses do not give any warranty
> whatsoever and reduce liabilities in a rather rigorous manner.
Proprietary licenses do the same. Personally, I would have no problem
with an exception for malice.
> how complicated would the OSI certification process get?
As complicated as any stereotypical lawyer could hope for. :-)
"What has four pairs of pants, lives John Cowan
in Philadelphia, and it never rains http://www.reutershealth.com
but it pours?" jcowan at reutershealth.com
--Rufus T. Firefly http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
More information about the License-discuss