question on a BSD-type license

David Woolley forums at
Tue Jul 29 07:08:17 UTC 2008

Matthew Flaschen wrote:
> 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 

That seems to be a question of law, which means that you need to ask 
your lawyer.  Just make it clear that you put a premium on using 
standard terms.

>> 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.

That's because of licence proliferation.  It would create a new licence 
without obvious need.  Note that any rule actually forbidding use, would 
disqualify it under the "field of endeavour" rule.

David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.

More information about the License-discuss mailing list