[License-review] For Legacy Approval: TOPPERS License

Thorsten Glaser tg at mirbsd.de
Thu Sep 3 07:15:35 UTC 2015

Richard Fontana dixit:

>but I'm not aware of anything as broad as this in a license recognized
>as open source or free software(if I'm right in reading it as the same

I think the disclaimer (or wording or absence thereof) has not been
seen a reason to prevent OSI approval. Other approved licences have
indemnification clauses or “patent” clauses that are at least as
worrisome as this…

>action whatsoever" ... I wouldn't expect to see something so broad in
>an open source license, even though admittedly I can't give you a
>strict OSD-based argument for that. We see certain kinds of limited
>indemnification provisions in the MPL, Apache License 2.0, and EPL,

I think that is mostly because overly broad disclaimers are invalid
in the countries those licences were drafted, due to customer pro‐
tection laws. This however has no influence on the rest of the li‐
cence (at least for my jurisdiction and AFAIHH/TTBOMK, IANAL).

This is something for TOPPERS to think about, definitely.

(gnutls can also be used, but if you are compiling lynx for your own use,
there is no reason to consider using that package)
	-- Thomas E. Dickey on the Lynx mailing list, about OpenSSL

More information about the License-review mailing list