Subject: RE: License in question
From: "Smith, McCoy" <mccoy.smith@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 08:15:50 -0800

 Thu, 17 Nov 2005 08:15:50 -0800
As an incentive, someone might want to point him to the provisions of
the UCC (2-316) regarding the appropriate way to exclude implied
warranties.  There is a reason why most open source licenses use ALL
CAPS and say "AS IS." 

-----Original Message-----
From: Wilson, Andrew [mailto:andrew.wilson@intel.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 6:46 PM
To: Chuck Swiger; Dirk Huenniger
Cc: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: RE: License in question

I agree with Messrs. Swiger and Huenniger and their opinion that
this license appears to be GPL-compatible, but would add this:
is there any chance of contacting Nicolas Devillard and asking him to
relicense his code with the canonical text of either the
(new style) BSD or MIT licenses, as approved by OSI?

The BSD and MIT licenses do what he seems to want to do, and are
recognized as being GPL compatible.

Andy Wilson
Intel Open Source Technology Center


> /Copyright (c) 2000-2005 by Nicolas Devillard.
> Written by Nicolas Devillard. Not derived from licensed software.
>  
> Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any
> purpose on any computer system, and to redistribute it freely,
> subject to the following restrictions:
>  
> 1. The author is not responsible for the consequences of use of
>    this software, no matter how awful, even if they arise
>    from defects in it.
>  
> 2. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented, either
>    by explicit claim or by omission.
>  
> 3. Altered versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not
>    be misrepresented as being the original software.
>  
> 4. This notice may not be removed or altered./