Subject: Re: EROS license
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 09:50:14 +0900 (JST)

>>>>> "Ian" == Ian Lance Taylor <> writes:

    Ian> Moreover, most kernel distributors do after all provide
    Ian> source code, albeit code the customer is not permitted to
    Ian> distribute, so I don't see why using a free software license
    Ian> introduces any additional liability.

Perhaps because they specifically encourage modification and
redistribution?  That is going to look awfully weird to that
hypothetical jury; your heirs' and assignees' lawyers are going to
argue contributory negligence at the very least, whatever the truth
about the Fred Flintstone patch.

Anyway, it does not matter.  _You_ have license willies that can't be
justified rationally (nor vice-versa, of course), why can't Jonathan
(or his lawyer) have a different set of license willies?  You simply
have to take his worries at face value (he's not going to take your
advice over his lawyer's, I surely hope not), and construct a license
that looks like it might address his concerns.

I'm sure he's thought a lot more about the liability issues qua
liability than we have; shouldn't we put effort into constructing FS
licenses, where we (well, not me, I'm an academic) have relevant
experience, that his lawyer probably has not?

University of Tsukuba                Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences       Tel/fax: +81 (298) 53-5091
What are those two straight lines for?  "Free software rules."