[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] OSS License
That is how I interpreted it, as well. The preamble would be
where you would state your warranty position. The nature of the
GPL doesn't allow a warranty anyhow. I am looking into the legal
entity part now. Thanks for the input.
Warren.
> Well, this would solve plenty of problems... like finding an attourney
> willing to do pro bono work. The GPL is well researched and tested.
> The only item I could see would be to go through the application
> procedure and get it covered before anything is etched in silicon. We
> will probably need to be set up as a legal entity of some kind... PSUBS
> would probably qualify... or else issue the license to a single
> individual. Now, somebody might well take the design and go into
> production... though I suspect that this would not be as much of a
> problem as it could be. The GPL actually encourages this.
>
> What the GPL will protect us from is an individual or legal entity
> taking our OSS and copyrighting the design and then trying to charge us
> for using our own design. That would suck. The other item is one of
> warranty... there is none. As I understand it, if somebody builds this
> from our specs, they do so at their own risk. If they tangle with
> heteroteuthis Harvei (not sure I got the spelling right), and end up
> being crushed in its tentacles and eaten, nobody can sue us. In fact,
> if they dive to the bottom of their own swimming pool and the hull
> collapses because of our design flaw, we would still be covered... in
> theory.
>
> The fact that there will be absolutely no warranty needs to be made
> abundantly clear in any documentation that we eventually release.
>
> On Tue, 2003-01-28 at 10:20, Warrend Greenway wrote:
>
> > They recommended the GPL, of which they already have a form
> > intended for non-software documents. The FSF is interested in
> > promoting the free exchange of information. As for liability,
> > that is one of the reasons that any hardware is totally out of
> > the question. Furthermore, they already cover software that
> > is medical, and aerospace in nature. It sounds like they are
> > simply interested in helping to make this kind of information
> > available to the public. Hhhmmmm. Digital signature, though...
> > I will check the message, I can have them put it on paper...But
> > they said that there were already projects that dealt with designs
> > like this under their protection.
> >
> > Warren.
> >
> > > Warren, which of their licenses did they recommend? Did the agreement
> > > come with any kind of digital signature that can be verified? I'm a bit
> > > surprised that they would be so quick to agree to something like this so
> > > early in the project... submersibles are inherently lawsuits waiting to
> > > happen.
> > >
> > > On Mon, 2003-01-27 at 13:51, Warrend Greenway wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hey, Dale. I contacted the FSF (Free Software Foundation), and
> > > > they agreed to harbor us under their legal umbrella. Any input
> > > > on this? They said that they are already covering similar projects,
> > > > and that they only problem would be hardware...Which we don't
> > > > want to cover anyhow. This would mean that we would be covered
> > > > under the GPL with a preamble. I am open to any discussion on this
> > > > point. The GPL would have some drawbacks, but it would solve our
> > > > license problems and give us a legal shield.
> > > >
> > > > Warren.
> > >
> > >
> > > Dale A. Raby
> > > Editor/Publisher
> > > The Green Bay Web
> > > http://www.thegreenbayweb.com
> > << dalesignature.gif >>
>
>
> Dale A. Raby
> Editor/Publisher
> The Green Bay Web
> http://www.thegreenbayweb.com
<< dalesignature.gif >>
--
______________________________________________
http://www.linuxmail.org/
Now with e-mail forwarding for only US$5.95/yr
Powered by Outblaze