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. -- http://frx.netsons.org/progs/scripts/refresh-pubring.html 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