[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: FWD: Analog licence violates DFSG



[my apologies for the private mail if you are subscribed to debian-legal]

On Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 07:30:05PM +0100, Stephen Turner wrote:
> The reason for this clause was that I was advised by a lawyer (albeit
> in an informal conversation) that I could be liable under UK law if a
> user used the program to, for example, process user data against the
> Data Protection Act. The US courts seem to me to be leaning this way
> as well recently in cases on Napster et al.
> 
> Personally, I don't really see that this condition is DFSG-non-free
> anyway in that it doesn't IMO "restrict anyone from making use of the
> program in a specific field of endeavor". But I would also like
> _informed_ opinions on whether I could be liable in the UK for users'
> illegal use of analog. If so, would my clause cover me? Would a simple
> disclaimer clause?

Well, how about something like this?  It's a standard part of the MIT license.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT.  IN NO EVENT SHALL
STEPHEN TURNER BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER
IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN
CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

Can your lawyer live with that?

-- 
G. Branden Robinson             |   When I die I want to go peacefully in
Debian GNU/Linux                |   my sleep like my ol' Grand Dad...not
branden@debian.org              |   screaming in terror like his passengers.
http://www.debian.org/~branden/ |

Attachment: pgpfKC3DCpl4L.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: