Generic Simple License

Forrest J. Cavalier III mibsoft at mibsoftware.com
Tue May 23 19:06:41 UTC 2000


Justin Wells wrote:

> I'm not sure that such short disclaimers will work.

What is the smallest warranty disclaimer you have seen and think
would work?

> Also, since you do not
> require people to copy the license on to further works, you will get sued by
> third parties who had no opportunity to read your disclaimers.

I don't understand how.  OK, well I understand that anyone can
bring a lawsuit against anyone just by going through the motions,
but let's discuss liability.

Suppose a recipient ("second party") removes the license and
distributes the work (to a "third party.")  The second party
must have provided some license to the third party, or the
third party lacks legal standing to use the work, but that is
not exactly important.)

How does such removal of the license text and disclaimer make the
authors any more liable for damages arising from third party use?

Related example situation:
  Suppose someone takes a commercial shrink wrap package, and
  emails a copy (illegal) to someone, who experiences some
  type of loss as a result of using it.

  Who is liable for the loss?

Related example situation:
  If software is "released to the public domain" is there
  any lingering liability?

----------------------------------------------------------------
Here are thoughts and motivation behind the license:

   - I do not want to have a license propagation requirement since it
     is a barrier to combining software written under various licenses.

     Also, I want recipients to have the ability to create commercial
     closed source, where the third-party does not have distribution
     rights, as well as open source.

     How can I be more liberal?

   - After thinking about open source/free software off and on for 
     years, and trying to predict the future of open source, I think
     branding will continue to be ultra-important.  Trust of software
     supplier is also important.  

     So although I don't generally like compliance to existing laws 
     to be a condition of licensing, (reference the Apple Open Source
     patent revocation discussion) I think it provides small authors
     a bit more (and necessary) leverage against abuses.

Thanks for writing.  I hope to discuss these issues a bit more.

Forrest



More information about the License-discuss mailing list