Re: [hackers] [libzahl] Switch to ISC license. || Mattias Andrée

From: Mattias Andrée <maandree_AT_kth.se>
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 18:06:15 +0200

On Thu, 2 Jun 2016 17:10:29 +0200
Mattias Andrée <maandree_AT_kth.se> wrote:

> On Thu, 2 Jun 2016 16:47:40 +0200
> FRIGN <dev_AT_frign.de> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2 Jun 2016 12:54:39 +0200
> > Mattias Andrée <maandree_AT_kth.se> wrote:
> >
> > Hey Mattias,
> >
> > > I generally think licenses are easier to grok
> > > if they are long. They omit less information.
> > > But I have to agree that ISC is easier to
> > > understand than MIT. For one thing, it does
> > > not use any words that require a legal dictionary
> > > and most of it can be understood by a 10-year
> > > old that does not even have English as her
> > > native language. It also does not use any
> > > fuzzy words like “substantial”. ISC leaves all
> > > cruft and fuzzyness to copyright law.
> >
> > yeah and that's the good point about it. It's clear
> > what it implies without hiding it behind long
> > paragraphs.
> >
> > > Now, if we could only get rid of the disclaimer,
> > > but I suspect it is required in some
> > > jurisdictions.
> >
> > It's required in all jurisdictions. I challenge you
> > to find one where this isn't needed, afaik there
> > is none.
> > Commercial law is pretty clear in this case. If
> > something blows your computer up, you could
> > theoretically sue. So yeah, let's keep it.

I wasn't really thinking about commercial law.
I'm not selling the software. In non-commercial
context, a disclaimer should not be necessary.
A warning like “this software may contain faults
(“bugs”) that may cause unintended behaviour”
ought be enough in commercial context.

>
> Perhaps. I don't really know about the disclaimer
> stuff, but I would imagine that either you must
> state it, or it would be the default, and the latter
> seem must more reasonable. And anyone could sue
> in either case anyway, and it's up to the court to
> decide. All this disclaimer stuff all seem like put
> a disclaimer on an axe stating that the manufacture
> is not responsible accidental dismemberment as a
> result of clumsy use, no reasonable judge would think
> they are anyway, why you not find such disclaimers
> on axes.
>
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > FRIGN
> >
>


Received on Thu Jun 02 2016 - 18:06:15 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Thu Jun 02 2016 - 18:12:13 CEST