[License-review] Request for Approval : Modular Open Software License (MOSL)

Fri Feb 1 11:07:34 UTC 2013

Hi Hadrien,

Spot on. Looks perfect to me.

WBR // Love

On 2013-02-01 14.43, Hadrien G. wrote:
> Hi Love,
>
> I see your point. I do also care about letting software developers 
> take responsibility when they want to, though... How about this 
> wording then ?
>
> "UNLESS AGREED TO IN WRITING, THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", 
> WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED 
> TO THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY, OR 
> FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OF THE 
> SOFTWARE BE LIABLE, AGAIN UNLESS AGREED TO IN WRITING, FOR ANY DIRECT, 
> INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, 
> HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT 
> OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF 
> SUCH DAMAGE.
>
> SHOULD APPLICABLE LAWS HOLD THE AUTHORS OF THE SOFTWARE LIABLE UNDER 
> SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES, LICENSEES MUST EITHER VOW INDEMNITY FROM SUCH 
> RIGHTS, OR OBTAIN WRITTEN AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE SUCH SUPPORT FROM THE 
> AUTHORS OF THE SOFTWARE BEFORE THEY USE THE SOFTWARE."
>
> All the best,
> Hadrien
>
> Le 31/01/2013 20:48, Love Nystrom a écrit :
>> Hi Hadrien,
>>
>> You can't restrict the operation of law, but I think it's prudent to 
>> include something like your
>> special clause of information about accountability.  To save yourself 
>> any nasty surprise lawsuit
>> you were not even aware could occur.  Convoluted or not, it's food 
>> for thought.
>>
>> Personally I'd go for the usual.. the author can not be held 
>> accountable in any way whatsoever,
>> and the user must assume the full responsibility of any use of 'the 
>> product'.
>> If country Y has laws enforcing accountability, the user must vow 
>> indemnity from it,
>> or refrain from using the product.
>>
>> WBR // Love
>>
>> On 2013-02-01 02.29, Hadrien G. wrote:
>>> My problem with this reasoning is that I don't think software 
>>> licensing terms can do such a thing as restrict the operation of a 
>>> law. As far as I know, if I distribute the software to Mr X from 
>>> country Y, and the law of country Y states that all software authors 
>>> are held responsible for some specific events (such as casualities) 
>>> occuring due to the use of their software, then in such an event, Mr 
>>> X is free to sue me without my written consent, whether the license 
>>> says otherwise or not. As soon as I have distributed the software to 
>>> him, I am held responsible for whatever happens.
>>>
>>> Perhaps it would be possible to write a clause specifying that if 
>>> applicable law makes a provision for extra warranties, then the 
>>> software user must inform the software authors of the existence of 
>>> such legal provision before the license is declared valid, and the 
>>> software author is free to void that user's license if he can't 
>>> comply with the law. Sounds like a convoluted way to go about it, 
>>> though, and the people who wrote the GPL's disclaimer, which I took 
>>> inspiration from, did not bother to go down this route.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Hadrien
>>>
>>> Le 31/01/2013 11:12, Love Nystrom a écrit :
>>>> Hi Hadrien,
>>>>
>>>> Why ?  For your own good.
>>>> With your phrasing, you can be held accountable for flaws by Mr X 
>>>> from country Y
>>>> without having any previous knowledge of your accountability.
>>>> That's why the AND. Then Mr X will have to contact you in advance 
>>>> and notify you that country Y
>>>> has a law BLAH BLAH that can hold you accountable, and you have the 
>>>> option to decline.
>>>>
>>>> I understand your want to be able to accept further accountability 
>>>> by explicit agreement,
>>>> so for both sets of conditions to be valid you'll need some further 
>>>> rephrasing.
>>>>
>>>> Just my penny to the pot.
>>>> WBR // Love
>>>>
>>>> (PS. I'm not speaking for OSI, I'm not with that organisation, just 
>>>> expressing a point of view.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2013-01-31 03.07, Hadrien G. wrote:
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> If I get it right, that would change the meaning quite 
>>>>> significantly, going from "country-specific laws or mutually 
>>>>> agreed warranty contracts can bypass this disclaimer" to "only a 
>>>>> combination of country law and warranty contracts can make the 
>>>>> author liable for software flaws". Which effectively translates to 
>>>>> "only country law can make the author liable for software flaws", 
>>>>> since software licenses do not override the software author's 
>>>>> legal responsibilities anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would you prefer it the latter way ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Hadrien
>>>>>
>>>>> Le 30/01/2013 14:40, Love Nystrom a écrit :
>>>>>> Hello Hadrien,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would suggest you rephrase the disclaimer slightly, and and 
>>>>>> change some ORs to ANDs:
>>>>>> UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW _AND_ AGREED TO IN WRITING...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just my penny to the pot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WBR // Love
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2013-01-30 15.12, Hadrien G. wrote:
>>>>>> ..abbreviated..
>>>>>>> **************************************************
>>>>>>> ***    Modular Open Software License (MOSL)    ***
>>>>>>> ***      Working Draft 3, 30 January 2013      ***
>>>>>>> ***  Copyright (c) 2012-2013 Hadrien Grasland  ***
>>>>>>> **************************************************
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Redistribution and use of this software, or modified forms of 
>>>>>>> it, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * Redistributions of source code must retain this list of 
>>>>>>> conditions, the above copyright notice, and the following 
>>>>>>> disclaimer.
>>>>>>> * Redistributions in binary form must include a copy of this 
>>>>>>> list of conditions, the above copyright notice, and the 
>>>>>>> following disclaimer, whether in documentation or in other 
>>>>>>> provided materials.
>>>>>>> * Redistributions in any form must be accompanied by information 
>>>>>>> on how to obtain complete source code for this software, and any 
>>>>>>> accompanying software that makes use of it. Source code must 
>>>>>>> either be included in the distribution, or be available for no 
>>>>>>> more than the cost of its distribution. For an executable file, 
>>>>>>> complete source code means the source code for all modules it 
>>>>>>> contains, save for modules or files that are typically provided 
>>>>>>> with the operating system on which the executable file runs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING, THIS 
>>>>>>> SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED 
>>>>>>> WARRANTIES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES 
>>>>>>> OF NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY, OR FITNESS FOR A 
>>>>>>> PARTICULAR PURPOSE. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OF THE 
>>>>>>> SOFTWARE BE LIABLE, AGAIN UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR 
>>>>>>> AGREED TO IN WRITING, FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, 
>>>>>>> SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, HOWEVER CAUSED AND 
>>>>>>> ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF 
>>>>>>> THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ===
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>> Neolander
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> License-review mailing list
>>>>>> License-review at opensource.org
>>>>>> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review 
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> License-review mailing list
>>>>> License-review at opensource.org
>>>>> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review 
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> License-review mailing list
>>>> License-review at opensource.org
>>>> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> License-review mailing list
>>> License-review at opensource.org
>>> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> License-review mailing list
>> License-review at opensource.org
>> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org
> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review