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.
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 - 17:10:29 CEST