[License-discuss] Why GPLv3 does not have a indemnification clause by default?
adrelanos at riseup.net
Sat Mar 16 16:40:00 UTC 2019
> Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, for material you
> add to a covered work, you may (if authorized by the copyright holders of
> that material) supplement the terms of this License with terms:
> f) Requiring indemnification of licensors and authors of that
> material by anyone who conveys the material (or modified versions of
> it) with contractual assumptions of liability to the recipient, for
> any liability that these contractual assumptions directly impose on
> those licensors and authors.
I wounder why GPLv3 allows to supplement terms related to
indemnification, but didn't add such an indemnification clause by default?
cc'd public license-discuss and whonix-devel mailing list so everyone
can benefit from your reply.
More information about the License-discuss