Subject: Country specific warranty disclaimer (Re: License Committee Report for September 2005)
From: Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 10:06:13 +0100

Russ,

> I bring two concerns from the committee to the board:
>
>   o Country-specific Warranty disclaimers are a nasty tarball that the
>     board needs to head off.  I (speaking for myself) suggest the
>     board request a report from the license approval committee on
>     suggested actions.

I take it that the OZPLB typifies this (i.e. you are worried about
licenses that specify particular jurisdictions, not generally drafted
licenses that do not refer to particular jurisdictions but have clauses
designed to cope with problems with particular jurisdictions).

> Australia needs different warranty disclaimer wording.  This is a huge
> nasty ball of wax.  How many different warranty disclaimers are there
> in different countries??
>
> Title: OZPLB Licence

....

> The OVPL consists of two sets of changes to the CDDL.  One set changes
> policy, and the other set changes implementation.

We got the OVPL Warranty disclaimer reviewed by AU lawyers. I am not at
liberty to produce their review, but I can tell you the changes between
OVPL and CDDL were a product of their review. We now have a warranty
disclaimer clause which we believe works in AU, but is not country specific.

What it doesn't do (deliberately, though some people may regard this as
a bug) is not grant the license at all where the restrictions on warranty
disclaimers are too great in the jurisdiction.

It would be interesting for the OZPLB folks to review the changes we made
and see if they could be used rather than the country specific version.
Equally, we'd be interested to hear if they think not, as clearly that
would indicate the OVPL wouldn't work in AU.

I will repeat my offer that any other license-developer is quite welcome
to use anything terms we have drafted.

Alex