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

Re: licensing of XMPP specifications

On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 14:09:41 -0700 Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

> Ben Finney wrote:
> > Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> writes:
> > 
> >> After some discussion and wordsmithing, we have consensus on the
> >> following wording (for which the "permissions" section is
> >> essentially a modified MIT license):
> > 
> > This raises the question, then, why the exact MIT/X11 license terms
> > were not used?
> That was discussed in the previous thread.

Yeah, and I think we explained why our recommendation was to adopt the
exact Expat/MIT license (or the exact X11/MIT license, if you prefer).

The proposed license talks about a "Specification", which becomes a bit
problematic, as soon as I modify the Specification to the point it is
not a "Specification" anymore.  I could turn it into a poem, or into a
summary description, or into a sci-fi novel, or into...

But I'm repeating myself: as you yourself said, that was discussed in
the previous thread.  Nonetheless, the situation hasn't improved from
this point of view...

> >> Warranty
> >>
> >> This Specification is provided "as is", without warranty of any kind,
> >> express or implied, [...]

A better title for this section would be "Disclaimer of warranty", or
"No warranty", I think.

My reiterated disclaimers: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP.

 New! Version 0.6 available! What? See for yourself!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment: pgpZ5cMpfsWUq.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: