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

Re: the ripmime license



On 2004-02-22 16:43:36 +0000 Willi Mann V. <willi@wm1.at> wrote:

                             ripMIME LICENSE

Summary: yuck. IMO, this licence seems DFSG-free, but it is confusing. I hope his lawyer did not charge him too much for it. Also, it has some "lawyerbombs" for me: terms that may already have been defined by law.

1. Redistributions qualify as "freeware" or "Open Source Software" under
   one of the following terms:

Confusing: quoted terms which are undefined.

(a) Redistributions are made at no charge beyond the reasonable cost
       of materials and delivery.

This is either null, a lawyerbomb (judgement required to establish "reasonable") or a loophole (get a stooge to do a distribution to you at no cost and then vary licence terms as permitted). But it seems not to matter, as:

   (b) Redistributions are accompanied by a copy of the Source Code or
by an irrevocable offer to provide a copy of the Source Code for
       up to three years at the cost of materials and delivery.  Such
       redistributions must allow further use, modification, and
       redistribution of the Source Code under substantially the same
       terms as this license.  For the purposes of redistribution
       "Source Code" means the complete compilable and linkable source
       code of ripMIME including all modifications.

I think this is DFSG-free, but there's a lawyerbomb for combining with other licences (what is "substantially"?).

2. Redistributions of source code must retain the copyright notices as
3. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the Copyright Notice,

These look simple.

4. Neither the name of ripMIME, nor Paul L Daniels, nor the
   the names of their contributors may be used to endorse or promote
   products derived from this software without specific prior written
   permission.

Looks null.

5. All redistributions must comply with the conditions imposed by the
   University of California on certain embedded code, whose copyright
   notice and conditions for redistribution are as follows:

   (a) Copyright (c) 2000 P.L.Daniels, All rights reserved.

Confusing: The UC code is copyright P.L.Daniels? Pardon?

   (b) Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or

Rest looks simple.

6. Disclaimer/Limitation of Liability: THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY
   P.L.Daniels. AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED
WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED.
   IN NO EVENT SHALL SENDMAIL, INC., THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
   CALIFORNIA OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT,
INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS
   OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED
   AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT
LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY
   WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE
   POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.

Odd: P.L.Daniels not listed as cannot be held liable and where did "Sendmail, Inc" come in?

--
MJR/slef     My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ slef@jabber.at
 Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/



Reply to: