question on a BSD-type license

[Matthew Flaschen]

Qianqian Fang wrote:
> My question is:
> 1. is this additional clause redundant from the no-liability disclaimer 
> in the license?

I don't see why it would be necessary.  BSD already disclaims "FITNESS 
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE".

> 2. does this additional contradict with the other terms and invalidate 
> the BSD license?

It wouldn't be OSI-approved with that addition.  It's probably 
compliant, but OSI would be reluctant to approve the modified version.

Matt Flaschen