Re: RE-PROPOSED: The Dictator Test
* Nathanael Nerode:
> You have hit the nail on the head. The warranty disclaimers don't
> say "You agree not to sue..." or "You agree that there is no
> warranty..."
Wrong, there are certainly some cases:
| THIS DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY CONSTITUTES AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THIS
| LICENSE. NO USE OF ANY SUBJECT SOFTWARE IS AUTHORIZED HEREUNDER EXCEPT
| UNDER THIS DISCLAIMER.
(SGI's GLX license.)
Does such a wording really make difference from a legal point of view?
I'm sure that if it did, we'd see more examples.
Do we really want to randomly punish licenses which use the wrong
catch phrases, even if they are legally equivalent to perfectably
acceptable licenses.
In addition, there seems to be a general consensus in Debian *against*
the Dictator Test. Nobody except me to mind that CA certificates come
with a lot of obnoxious licensing conditions (if we have a license to
distribute them at all).
Reply to: