Subject: Re: question on a BSD-type license
From: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 08:08:17 +0100

Matthew Flaschen wrote:
> Qianqian Fang wrote:
>> My question is:
>> 1. is this additional clause redundant from the no-liability 
>> disclaimer in the license?
> 
> I don't see why it would be necessary.  BSD already disclaims "FITNESS 
> FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE".

That seems to be a question of law, which means that you need to ask 
your lawyer.  Just make it clear that you put a premium on using 
standard terms.

> 
>> 2. does this additional contradict with the other terms and invalidate 
>> the BSD license?
> 
> It wouldn't be OSI-approved with that addition.  It's probably 
> compliant, but OSI would be reluctant to approve the modified version.

That's because of licence proliferation.  It would create a new licence 
without obvious need.  Note that any rule actually forbidding use, would 
disqualify it under the "field of endeavour" rule.

-- 
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.