[License-review] For Approval: Public Software License

[Josh Berkus]

On 03/09/2014 04:03 AM, Nikolaos-Modestos Kougioulis wrote:
> 1) The Cryptix General License is the most similar OSI-approved license.
> To my concern, that permissive, free software licence, does not make a
> clear definition of Limitation of Liability. The Public Software License
> is based on the Cryptix General License, with a clear disambiguation
> between the Disclaimer of Warranty and the Limitation of Liability.
> Moreover, at the end of the Public Software License, the agreement
> between the licensor and the end software user is stated clearly, aiming
> to emphasize the responsibilities of the user regarding the terms of the
> License.

Actually, what it looks very similar to is the PostgreSQL[1] license
(and, by that token, the MIT license[2]).

Given that we already have the extremely popular MIT and BSD[3] licenses
which offer the kind of very permissive licensing you desire, can you
explain in detailed technical language why you feel that the limitations
of liability in those licenses is distinct from your proposal?  At a
layman's reading, your license is identical to those.

[1]http://opensource.org/licenses/PostgreSQL
[2]http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT
[3]http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause

--Josh Berkus