Hello Nate,
I was actually having the same question as you and I don't know if you
have found an answer yet.
I just have found this page :
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:MIT?rd=Licensing/MIT, where MIT
licence variants are described. Some of them have a minimal no-waranty
clause a
Hello Nate,
I was actually having the same question as you and I don't know if you
have found an answer yet.
I just have found this page :
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:MIT?rd=Licensing/MIT, where MIT
licence variants are described. Some of them have a minimal no-waranty
clause a
On 06/02/2017 04:55, Tim Makarios wrote:
Okay, but if Carlos also distributes B, unchanged, then he's also a
distributor of B, but not an author of it. If B is released (and Carlos
distributes it) under, say, the Apache licence, then the Licensor is
disclaiming warranties of title and non-infri
On Fri, 2017-01-20 at 13:40 +0100, Massimo Zaniboni wrote:
> On 20/01/2017 00:20, Tim Makarios wrote:
>
> > Or is there some legal theory by
> > which the copyright holders are considered to be the licensors, but the
> > distributor is considered to be the one to who
On 20/01/2017 00:20, Tim Makarios wrote:
> Or is there some legal theory by
> which the copyright holders are considered to be the licensors, but the
> distributor is considered to be the one to whom the waiver of warranty
> applies?
From what I understood, the situation seems this
On Wed, 2017-01-18 at 08:01 +, David Woolley wrote:
> More generally on this topic, the requirement to include the copyright
> and licence in the permissive licences is only really codifying best
> practice. That's especially true for open source derivatives, where the
>
Hello All,
I was looking at the Free Public License/Zero Clause BSD License, and I
saw that its warranty disclaimer is a lot longer/more capitalized than
the zlib warranty disclaimer.
The Free Public License says:
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL
WARRA
The Mozilla Public License explicitly allows a distributor to do this.
Mitchell
bird birdie wrote:
Hi,
With regard to the disclaimer clauses regarding
warranty and liability in many open source licenses I
have the following question. Does a distributor of OSS
need permission of the
Hi,
With regard to the disclaimer clauses regarding
warranty and liability in many open source licenses I
have the following question. Does a distributor of OSS
need permission of the copyrightholders to provide
warranty and to accept liability?
I heard that some distributors of open source
Russell Nelson scripsit:
> [ please discuss this license. I assume that the submittor means to
> withdraw the previous version. -russ ]
I see no problems with this license.
--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To say that Bilbo's breath was taken aw
[ please discuss this license. I assume that the submittor means to
withdraw the previous version. -russ ]
The originally posted No Warranty License isn't being lookup upon
favorably on the discuss list so here is an updated version to
discuss. It is a BSD license with two extra sent
***
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Nathan Kelley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 4:53 AM
> > To: Justin Chen-Wells; Rod Dixon J.D. LL.M.
> > Cc: OSI License Discussion
home-office
Digital Thinking Inc. 972 467 6793 cell
*
> -Original Message-
> From: Nathan Kelley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 4:53 AM
> To: Justin Chen-Wells; Rod Dixon J.D. LL.M.
&g
Nathan Kelley scripsit:
> Those in the proprietary software business aren't allowed to re-use
> code from any software licensed under any OSD-compliant license in
> their proprietary products without conforming to the conditions of the
> license, making their product nonproprietary;
This is b
wouldn't. But there is a difference between your scenario and
that of the No Warranty License: your scenario says "the user can't
accept the license because their jurisdiction say they can't",
whereas
the No Warranty License says "the user CAN accept the license, but
th
Right on! /Larry
> -Original Message-
> From: Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 4:42 PM
> To: Justin Chen-Wells; Nathan Kelley
> Cc: OSI License Discussion
> Subject: Re: discuss: No Warranty License.
>
>
>
Cc: "OSI License Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 8:53 AM
Subject: Re: discuss: No Warranty License.
:
: You have to be careful with this:
:
: o Open source developers ought to be able to limit their
: liability, otherwise many f
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 07:05:55AM +1100, Nathan Kelley wrote:
> > You have said that this "No Warranty License" fails to comply because
> > it discriminates against people in a particular jurisdiction. Your
> > reasoning was that the laws of that region are be
sion ("license") from the author.
You have said that this "No Warranty License" fails to comply because
it discriminates against people in a particular jurisdiction. Your
reasoning was that the laws of that region are beyond the control of
its inhabitants (questionable) a
, no matter how crazy the laws may be
The second point requires explanation. You have said that this "No
Warranty License" fails to comply because it discriminates against
people in a particular jurisdiction. Your reasoning was that the
laws of that region are beyond the control of its i
To OSI License Discussion subscribers,
From: Anonymous Poster,
From: David Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
I have concluded that the "No Warranty License" does not conform to the
Open Source Definition. The offending clause is as follows:
If the following disclaimer of warranty
Russell Nelson wrote:
[ Please discuss this license. Is this discriminating against users
in countries where warranty can be disclaimed? -russ ]
If the following disclaimer of warranty and liability is not valid due
to the laws in a jurisdiction then NO RIGHTS ARE GRANTED in that
jurisdiction
[ Please discuss this license. Is this discriminating against users
in countries where warranty can be disclaimed? -russ ]
This license is a standard BSD license without the advertising clause
but with a clause (immediately before the warranty and liability
disclaimer) which only gives you
> Sure. Take a look at http://linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=6155.
>
So, how does someone with sense or conscience redistribute software
and offer a warranty of non-infringement for software they acquired
or is a combined work?
Relying on a cascade of breach of warranty lawsuits back t
Mitchell Baker wrote:
> Larry, can you explain the thinking behind the warranty in the OSL?
Sure. Take a look at http://linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=6155.
/Larry Rosen
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
25 matches
Mail list logo
