Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 07:10:49 +0000 (UTC) From: Janne Snabb <snabb@epipe.com> To: FreeBSD Ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: License Framework: Develop Best Practices Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1006150613290.22303@tiktik.epipe.com> In-Reply-To: <6335CF3A-9845-48A6-B7E7-AB8252C123B1@mac.com> References: <201006150247.20325.marco.broeder@gmx.eu> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1006142126480.32189@wonkity.com> <6335CF3A-9845-48A6-B7E7-AB8252C123B1@mac.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010, Chuck Swiger wrote: > Where I live, someone without a legal degree cannot offer legal > advice [..] > It might also not be a bad idea to not display anything about > licensing until a human enables some Makefile switch which acknowledges > the limitations of the system (ie, license description coverage is > incomplete, etc, etc). IMHO it might make sense to add some sort of disclaimer that the license information is not to be considered as legal advice. Otherwise people who redistribute the ports in some country with a ridiculous legal system might become liable for something if they are unlucky. I am not sure if this should be in the documentation, or if it should be displayed every time when anything license related appears on the screen. Regarding the Makefile switch I would rather have it the opposite way if it is seen necessary (IMHO not needed if there is a disclaimer somewhere). If you want to disable it, you could define: I_LIVE_IN_A_COUNTRY_WITH_A_RIDICULOUS_LEGAL_SYSTEM_WHICH_REQUIRES_DISCLAIMER_FOR_EVERY_SILLIEST_POSSIBLE_THING_TO_AVOID_LEGAL_LIABILITY_AND_THEREFORE_I_WANT_TO_DISABLE_THE_LICENSE_THING=yes As a previous poster pointed out, I also think that the different BSD licences should be separated. The 4-clause version puts heavy burdens on someone who redistributes and does marketing. In case a redistributor does any marketing, they need to figure out some acknowledgement to be added in marketing materials for every piece of 4-clause licensed software. I also second the previous posters' opinion that in specifying GPL related licenses, it is necessary to distinguish between "this version only" and "or any later version". It makes a big difference in license compatibility. If these distinctions are not made, the whole framework is not very useful. I would rather see it to be useful. DISCLAIMER: I am writing this in a country where I can give legal advice to anyone I want and also freely talk about anything else and therefore the readers of this message may freely make any interpretations they whish about the contents of this post. :) -- Janne Snabb / EPIPE Communications snabb@epipe.com - http://epipe.com/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1006150613290.22303>