<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 3/15/2025 3:15 PM, Pamela Chestek
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:bbd8f119-2b3e-8aa1-1389-dbbaf24ed53a@chesteklegal.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<p>As to your second point, I personally think the reduced
limitation of liability makes the thought of becoming a
contributor considerably less appealing, since a contributor
will also be signing up for what might be increased liability,
and the license less appealing for others to adopt for their
projects for the same reason. But I don't see it as a violation
of the OSD or a sufficiently significant enough restraint to
take it out of the category of open source.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I agree with Pam. This license seems like something that no one
other than a licensor in Germany would want to use, as other
jurisdictions allow broader disclaimers and IIRC, the
liability/warranty required under German law would apply in
Germany despite a broader disclaimer. But narrow special purpose
licenses do not in and of themselves violate OSD.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:bbd8f119-2b3e-8aa1-1389-dbbaf24ed53a@chesteklegal.com">
<p><span style="white-space: pre-wrap">
</span></p>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>