Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] OSS License - Please Review

[Michael Wright <mwright@smallip.com>]

Jeff Wrote:
 > After scanning the license agreement, I don't see how it provides any
 > protections for people who are working essentially as amateur 
engineers (please
 > don't take that the wrong way).

I think the way we get around this is to include an "Invariant Section" 
that is basically the un-warrenty clause from the BSD Software License. 
  Change "Software" to "Plans, Documentation, or Software" and poof we 
have the same level of protection the regents of the University of 
California's lawyers thought reasonable for their computer operating system.

The text of said clause is at the end and is available here:
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php

Thanks Warren and everyone else for all the work you've put into the OSS 
Project.  Now that I've parted ways with DOER I have less concern about 
what I write relating in some way to the work done by my employer (their 
concern).


Begin Warrenty Clause of BSD License:
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS 
IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED 
TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A 
PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER 
OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, 
EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, 
PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR 
PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF 
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING 
NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS 
SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

Jeff Post wrote:

> Hi All,
> 
> After scanning the license agreement, I don't see how it provides any
> protections for people who are working essentially as amateur engineers (please
> don't take that the wrong way). This license is essentially an open source
> software license adapted for documentation. Yes, the OSS designs are documents,
> but if someone takes this design, and dies because of a shortcoming in the
> design, I don't think this license is going to protect anyone. I also don't
> think that you will be afforded any protection because you are providing the
> plans free.
> 
> When you (or I, or someone else) designs a sub for ourselves, builds it, and
> gets into trouble, we have no one to blame but  ourselves. When someone else
> takes your design and builds it, and gets into trouble, I guarantee you will be
> sued into oblivion.
> 
> I don't think that the OSS design should be distributed as if they are plans. I
> think that someone ought to create a website documenting the OSS collaboration.
> The site should clearly state "don't do this at home". Later (hopefully) the
> site could document someone building the OSS, and then testing. What I'm saying
> is the website is more of a documentary than an endorsement.
> 
> JP
> 
> 
> Quoting Warren Greenway <opensourcesub@yahoo.com>:
> 
> 
>>This is a link to the license recommended by the Free
>>Software Foundation. Please spend a moment to review
>>the license (If you consider yourself part of the OSS
>>Project), and provide me with feedback concerning 
>>suitability. This license would provide us with a 
>>reasonable level of legal coverage for the design.
>>http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.txt
>>
>>Warren.
>>opensourcesub@yahoo.com
>>
>>
>>__________________________________
>>Do you Yahoo!?
>>SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
>>http://sbc.yahoo.com
>>
> 
> 
>