For Approval: The netX Public Lisense (in plain text)
andrew.wilson at intel.com
Thu Oct 7 16:11:54 UTC 2010
Schmitz, Patrice-Emmanuel wrote:
> IMHO the purpose of the discussion is not to compare US and EU laws, but to fix the point
> that according to the 10 OSI rules "there may be good reasons for not approving
> the netX Public Licence (as Carlo Piana said) but not because of their liability
> exclusion provision (which is outside the scope of copyright)".
In addition to the OSD, which is silent about the liability
allowed for compliant licenses, for the last few years this list has followed a somewhat
unwritten meta-rule discouraging new licenses which
create silos of code incompatible with the existing open source code base.
Let's try a thought experiment. I want to copy some BSD code into my netX-licensed
project. The combined work presumably must be netX-licensed since it is the
more restrictive license. However, all existing BSD disclaimers of liability must
remain in place, and those disclaimers (while they might not be enforceable
in all jurisdictions) are broader than netX's. Conflict of licenses?
Intel open source technology center
More information about the License-review