Re: PBS License
On 17 Jul 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>John Galt <galt@inconnu.isu.edu> writes:
>
>> Of course, part of the FUD is courtesy of the FSF...
>>
>> http:////www.gnu.org/philosophy/ucita.html
>
>Um, that's not FUD, though it's a little F. But it's why UCITA is a
>bad law. It's not why we can't use a free software license that
>involves a choice-of-law in a UCITA state.
>
>And the reason it's bad law has not much to do with the present issue,
>and certainly not because it changes the meanings of words or the
>interpretation of licenses. The instant problem with it is that it
Actually it sort of does: see my long missive on UCITA.
>imposes mandatory warranties of a certain sort.
What's problematic with [section 401]:
(1) for the duration of the license, that no person holds a rightful
claim to, or interest in, the information which arose from an act or
omission of the licensor, other than a claim by way of infringement or
misappropriation, which will interfere with the licensee's enjoyment
of its interest; and
[2+ deal with exclusive licenses]?
402 deals with truth in advertising: if you say it, according to UCITA,
you'd best back it up. Hardly an onerous obligation.
Sections 403, 404, and 405 all start with "unless the warranty is
disclaimed or modified...", so Debian's NO WARRANTY motd covers that.
>The bit about shrink-wrap licenses you also misunderstood. The fact
>that people used to agree to the PBS license by shrink-wrap is not
>relevant. The point about shrink-wrap is that if you have a
>shrink-wrap license, there are things you can do to avoid the
>automatic warranty provisions.
You can avoid them by a disclaimer in ALL cases, not just shrinkwrap.
>UCITA is a problem, but not a problem which people can't understand,
>and not a problem which somehow magically infects any license that
>mentions a state that passed UCITA.
>
>Thomas
>
>
>
--
The early worm gets the bird.
Who is John Galt? galt@inconnu.isu.edu, that's who!
Reply to: