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

Re: infos about alien licenses

On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 07:45:46AM +0200, Wolfgang Lonien wrote:
> > I don't think that the clause is necessarily a problem, though -- it reads
> > to me more like a slightly more emphatic no-warranty clause, rather than a
> > prohibition against use in any particular field.
> So what should I do in this case? Contact the upstream and ask him/her
> to change that license? Or do we accept this? I'll leave that open to
> discussion here for the moment.

Since there hasn't been any dissenting opinion expressed, I'd say that
there's no massive objection to the clause as it stands.  My advice would be
to put in a quiet query to upstream asking if they really think that the
extra bit is really needed, since there's a perfectly good warranty
disclaimer already, and whether they meant for the clause to be binding or
merely advisory.  In the meantime, get the packaging sorted out (both the
app itself and the dependencies).  My guess is that upstream probably
boilerplated the template from somewhere, or thought it was a good idea at
the time(tm), and will be happy to clarify their intent.

- Matt

Reply to: