On Wednesday 04 September 2002 04:11 pm, Bruce Dodson wrote:
> I have in the past presented my license terms on the "License Agreement"
> page provided by my install builder. This page has a note saying "if you
> do not accept, you cannot install this software"
I've seen that as well with the I
I have published software under an MIT-style License, and I don't know if
that makes a good contract or not, but I get the feeling that it's pretty
vague, and that I might be better off to treat it as a permission notice and
not enter into contracts with all my users.
This ties back to recent dis
The updated license is available at
http://enetwizard.sourceforge.net/license.html and below. I believe
this can be considered the "final revision" and as such ready for
consideration by the OSI.
eNetwizard Content Application Server License
(Modified Artistic License)
Preamble
Copyright
Mahesh,
I do not believe technically that the configuration wizard would suffice
for the legal purposes the click-wrap is designed for... I believe this
because you must first install the package on your system (it must be
running on the server) before you can actually access the configuration
w
Robert Samuel White wrote:
>
> I've been giving much thought to this, because eNetwizard is entirely
> code-based, there is no installation module, so I cannot very well put it in
> what has been called on this list as a "click-wrap"!
Umm, I do not think that tis list has considered such kinds o
In one of my licenses, I use the phrase "the copyright holders and
contributing authors" instead of my own name, in the disclaimers. The BSD
license says "copyright holders and contributors", and the AFL goes one step
further, saying "licensor, contributors, and copyright owners". (I think
"lice
Well, the PHP License is not in the OSI-approved list, this is true.
However, the disclaimer part is included in the Apache License (which is
approved), so the disclaimer should not be the problem. And of course
it's not the problem as we have been discussing it...
You've brought up a good point
Robert Samuel White wrote:
> I agree that this should be changed; distributors of modified versions should
> be able to disclaim their liability as well.
(some semantic hair splitting first)
Rather, it is the disclaimer which should disclaim distributors'/modifiers'
liability. Disclaimers whic
8 matches
Mail list logo
