Robert Samuel White wrote: > I agree that this should be changed; distributors of modified versions should > be able to disclaim their liability as well.
(some semantic hair splitting first) Rather, it is the disclaimer which should disclaim distributors'/modifiers' liability. Disclaimers which are part of unmodifiable licenses should not require something to be done by the distributor/modify-er. > The disclaimer is only necessary because there are people out there that will > sue you for anything they can and I really don't have time for frivolous > lawsuits; Disclaimers do not protect you from a lawsuit. *Nothing* prevents anybody from filing a suit against you. The disclaimer protects you in the event of a suit. > What would you propose? Simply removing the "to the standard package" part > of the sentence? No, remove the first 'Robert Samuel White' from the disclaimer. That way every person who is potentially liable, including Robert Samuel White are are protected. Of course, I am open to other suggestions also ... but they might be more verbose. Re. PHP license, I do not know if that one is OSS certified. Regards, Mahesh T Pai -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
