Question regarding certification

[John Cowan]

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
> hands.

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