Subject: RE: Academic Free License
From: "Lawrence E. Rosen" <>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 09:13:16 -0700

Dave Woolley wrote:
> The requirement to include the whole disclaimer, and the
> fact that the dsclaimer seems to relate to the sub-licensor, 
> rather than the original licensor, seems to prevent a 
> business model in which the sub-licensor sells warranty services.
> That would seem to rule out the most typical cases of the 
> inclusion of BSD licensed software in commercial products.
> My understanding is that the disclaimer is normally trying to 
> protect the original licensor.

Dave, thanks for your input.

The goal is not to require any sublicensing.  All persons who obtain a
copy of the Software receive a license directly from the Licensor.  The
disclaimer is the original Licensor's disclaimer.

There are otherwise no restrictions in the license to prevent anyone
from offering additional warranty terms for the original Software or for
any proprietary or open source derivative works made therefrom.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave J Woolley [] 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 3:21 AM
> To: ''
> Subject: RE: Academic Free License
> ---------------------------DISCLAIMER---------------------------
> This e-mail is confidential and intended solely for the use of the 
> individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions presented 
> are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those 
> of the company. If you are not the intended recipient, be 
> advised that 
> you have received this e-mail in error and that any use, 
> dissemination, 
> forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail is strictly 
> prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please 
> contact the sender.

license-discuss archive is at