Well, the PHP License is not in the OSI-approved list, this is true. However, the disclaimer part is included in the Apache License (which is approved), so the disclaimer should not be the problem. And of course it's not the problem as we have been discussing it...
You've brought up a good point, of course. The disclaimer *should* protect me (or a distributor) in cases where I (or a distributor) were sued, but I have taken the time to read through all of the past posts on this list, including yours, and the gist of what I have found is that the disclaimer cannot be considered in a court of law unless the person knowingly read the disclaimer, and from what else was said in the list, it sounds like including it as part of the license does not suffice for that purpose. Is this still the general consensus? Personally, I can't imagine a scenario where I (or a distributor) could be liable for any damage caused by the use of eNetwizard; any damage caused would be from some one using the package in a manner in which it was never intended, but of course, that does not stop some one from suing... I've been giving much thought to this, because eNetwizard is entirely code-based, there is no installation module, so I cannot very well put it in what has been called on this list as a "click-wrap"! There is, however, a configuration wizard which I am designing for it which is used for the purpose of "configuring" the package correctly; it will not work until configured with the wizard. I could place a click-wrap there. You also brought up the point of "many licenses" as part of a distribution. I am giving this some thought too, because I'd love for others to distribute my package in aggregate with their own, and I will somehow make the config.wizard serve their licenses as well. This particular license is intended strictly for the core product, not necessarily "extensions" or "addons" to the package -- there are many ways to extend the product -- and these should fall under any license a person chooses, including (potentially) commercial licenses... As the disclaimer stands now, I consider it verbose! I like "black and white" -- "straight to the point" -- licenses. The more words you add the more you complicate its meaning. I understand this is important in some circumstances, but not for an open source license where I am simply trying to retain some semblance of artistic control over the package. How about an excerpt from the Common Public License... NO WARRANTY EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY SET FORTH IN THIS AGREEMENT, THE PROGRAM IS PROVIDED ON AN "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Each Recipient is solely responsible for determining the appropriateness of using and distributing the Program and assumes all risks associated with its exercise of rights under this Agreement, including but not limited to the risks and costs of program errors, compliance with applicable laws, damage to or loss of data, programs or equipment, and unavailability or interruption of operations. DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY SET FORTH IN THIS AGREEMENT, NEITHER RECIPIENT NOR ANY CONTRIBUTORS SHALL HAVE ANY LIABILITY FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION LOST PROFITS), HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OR DISTRIBUTION OF THE PROGRAM OR THE EXERCISE OF ANY RIGHTS GRANTED HEREUNDER, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. -----Original Message----- From: Mahesh T Pai [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 3:00 PM To: Robert Samuel White Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: discuss: Modified Artistic License (eNetwizard Content Application Server) 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
