question on a BSD-type license
forums at david-woolley.me.uk
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
> FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE".
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
>> 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.
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