Subject: RE: DRAFT: OSL version 3.0
From: Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 00:47:06 +0100

Lawrence,

> I think that adding such a sentence would be contrary to the
> second-to-last sentence of section 7: "This DISCLAIMER of warranty
> constitutes an essential part of this License." I'm sorry, but if my
> disclaimer of software warranties is not legal in your jurisdiction, then
> please don't use my free software. You have no license. Return it for
> your money back.

Yes I agree. Sadly the result may be that your software (well, more
accurately your license) is thus not useable in my jurisdiction. This may
include the EU plus common law countries sharing similar laws to the UK
(AIUI Australia has the same issue in spades).

If the idea is to try and make a license that's usable in the maximum
number of jurisdictions (and by usable, I mean both protects the licensor
AND gives a valid license to the licensee), then I'm suggesting some
modification may be needed. I understand why you want the license to "fail
safe" (as far as the licensor is concerned) - i.e. if the jurisdiction is
so protective of the licensee that the licensor does not does not get what
they need in terms of disclaimer of warranty then rather than play along,
the licensor fails to license at all - however equally those selecting a
license will presumably not want to risk excluding a large part of the
world as potential licensees.

I take it that your concern is that some jurisdiction might (say) forbid
any disclaimer of warranty, and thus leave the licensor entirely
unprotected; if this is your issue, I'm not sure why the same does not
apply to the limitation of liability clause).

Alex