> On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Russell Nelson wrote: > > From what various legal scholars > > tell me, a non-contractual license (such as the GPL) cannot > cause you > > to give up your warranty rights.
> On Sat, 3 Aug 2002, Brian Behlendorf wrote: > Is there a reference of some sort for this? It's about the > only solid reason I see to need to go beyond copyright law. > Is there any court precedent that suggests this? A case > where someone was given something for free, with warranty > disclaimed in a copyright license, and the court decided that > warranty disclaimer was invalid? This is a pretty big delta > to current understanding, so if a change as large as > expanding the OSD to cover contracts is based upon this, we > need more than hearsay. > > Are there any other reasons to consider allowing the OSD to > cover contracts? My sense is that keeping it limited to > copyright licenses has been key to its success to this point. > > > Agreed. That's why I think we need to amend the OSD so that it > > clearly states that a license must not restrict use, > modification, or > > redistribution of the software. > > The OSD, by applying to copyright licenses, already allows > restrictions on redistribution. It'd be kinda toothless if > it didn't... I am baffled by everyone's confusion and philosophical rantings. Almost every license in OSI's approved list is much more than a copyright license. The MPL (and almost all similar licenses), for example, contains a patent grant that specifically applies to "use" and "practice" and it disclaims application of those patents to "the combination of the Original Code with other software or devices." It contains a defensive suspension provision relating to patent litigation that applies to users of the software as much as to distributors. It contains a limitation of liability clause (not related to the warranty provision) that limits liability for damages of any sort. It contains restrictions on U.S. government rights. It contains a comprehensive set of miscellaneous provisions that govern contract interpretation, governing law, jurisdiction and venue, attorneys' fees, even a disclaimer of the United Nations Convention on Contracts (!) for the International Sale of Goods. What makes anyone think that this *CONTRACT* will be interpreted by the courts strictly under copyright law? Now, what if a distributor under the MPL insists that *users* of his software indicate clearly their assent to this contract? Should the OSD prevent such manifestations of assent? This entire discussion of click-wrap has gotten so politicized that you are confusing your own lawyers with your opinions. /Larry -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3