On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 10:48:35 +1000 Ben Finney wrote: > Bastien ROUCARIES <roucaries.bastien@gmail.com> writes: [...] > > License to use, copy, modify, sell and/or distribute this software and > > its documentation for any purpose is hereby granted without royalty, > > subject to the following terms and conditions: > […] > > I agree that the text covered by that elision is a standard 3-clause > BSD-style license. As I said, I think it is not so similar to the 3-clause BSD license. Please re-read the 3 clauses you snipped and compare them with the 3 clauses in http://www.debian.org/misc/bsd.license They are not the same. They may be similar in effects, perhaps, but they are not the same... > > > LICENSEE shall indemnify, [...] > > This is an imposition of boundless and unknowable costs on the licensee, > based on the action of other parties. > > It goes far beyond the (already included) warranty disclaimer, and > reaches into the future life of the licensee to oblige legal defense of > the copyright holder. > > It makes the work non-free, in my opinion. Thanks for sharing your opinion. Your insight is much appreciated! > > If the paragraph were dropped, the disclaimer of warranty earlier would > still stand, which should be sufficient. It would also make the license > almost identical to a 3-clause BSD license, so I would just encourage > the copyright holder to reduce license proliferation by issuing a > standard text instead of their own variant. I agree with the recommendation and I personally suggest the adoption of the 3-clause BSD license: http://www.debian.org/misc/bsd.license -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
Attachment:
pgpKvzh5ZQqE4.pgp
Description: PGP signature