Re: License check for a new(ly modified) license..
On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 21:27:11 -0400 Felyza Wishbringer wrote: [...] My proposed WTFPLv3 (2011) http://gamingtools.com/WTFPLv3.txt Which changed name of the license and copyright. and add 2 termsconditions statements Updated from earlier today... a change to TC 1, which now states: You have sole liability for ... This sounds awkward to me: it is my understanding that liability is usually excluded or limited in Free Software licenses. For instance, compare with GNU GPL v2, section 12: |12. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING | WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR | REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, | INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING | OUT OF [...] -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpNefAMddBfj.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: License check for a new(ly modified) license..
My reading and understanding is that they are basically the same. From the GPLv2, it states that the copyright holder (author) and anyone who modifies or redistributes the code cannot be held liable to you for damages. From the proposed WTFPLv3, it states You are solely liable for 'what you do with it'.. which should be pretty much a clear indication that the author is not liable. Am I mistaken on this? | 12. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING | WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR | REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, | INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING | OUT OF [...] -- -Felyza -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/cahzo7k+fjjm9+c_nfj1dm333-qbnwklsedayeeswf23i+w+...@mail.gmail.com
Re: License check for a new(ly modified) license..
On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 15:17:13 -0400 Felyza Wishbringer wrote: My reading and understanding is that they are basically the same. I am not convinced... From the GPLv2, it states that the copyright holder (author) and anyone who modifies or redistributes the code cannot be held liable to you for damages. From the proposed WTFPLv3, it states You are solely liable for 'what you do with it'.. which should be pretty much a clear indication that the author is not liable. What happens when the You referred to by the license modifies and/or redistributes the code, as permitted by the license itself? At that point, someone who modifies and/or redistributes the code _can_ be held liable for what he/she does with the code... This scenario looks very different from what would happen with the GNU GPL v2. At least as far as I see it. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgp6A5ONRqYr5.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: License check for a new(ly modified) license..
Would this be better wording? 2. Nobody is liable for what .. you do with it The WTFPL goes beyond disclaimer to place liability on the licensee. That's an unusual step, and I'm not convinced that it preserves the recipient's freedom. -- -Felyza -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/cahzo7kkxsdb75bsrsrycckh-rakt01awxbfcysmfj+0qfuu...@mail.gmail.com
Re: License check for a new(ly modified) license..
Le Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 07:02:53PM -0400, Felyza Wishbringer a écrit : Would this be better wording? 2. Nobody is liable for what .. you do with it Dear Felyza, I think that unfortunately, there is no possiblity to have a license that is short and fun / satyrical / provocative / …, and at the same time have a wording that accurately fits the laws of many countries about liabilities and intellectual property. Just see for instance at the Creative Commons Universal Public Domain Dedication license: http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode This said, there are some minimalistic license that have a very short disclaimer, like the GNU All-Permissive license: http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/License-Notices-for-Other-Files Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110927232906.ga6...@merveille.plessy.net
Re: License check for a new(ly modified) license..
Felyza Wishbringer fel...@gmail.com writes: Would this be better wording? I don't have a lot of interest in constructing new license texts, since I much prefer that all software distributors avoid unnecessary license proliferation. Please, instead of constructing new licenses, use an existing widely-used well-understood free-software license, such as the terms of the Expat license. -- \“Only the educated are free.” —Epictetus | `\ | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87sjnhzc73@benfinney.id.au
