[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: License Feedback

• To: "'Andrew S. Townley'" <andrew.townley@b...>,"'Alan Gutierrez'" <alan-xml-dev@e...>
• Subject: RE: License Feedback
• From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>
• Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 18:14:10 +0100
• Cc: <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <1124207930.4367.98.camel@macross>
• Thread-index: AcWigcDbv2Hjxt2aQQaAAdpy4hoQbAAApz6A

> Of
> course, I read once that in every contract is the story of individual
> loopholes used and subsequently closed in the next version, so maybe
> this falls into that category.

One of the great mistakes is that these licenses all read like contracts.
They are not contracts, because they don't impose obligations on both
parties. The license is a unilateral statement that the author is waiving
certain rights, in particular copyright. If the licenses were written like
that, it would be much clearer that the author cannot possibly have any
obligations (or duty of care) towards the user. Disclaimers about
responsibility for nuclear catastrophe only tend to increase the impression
that there are some events for which the author DOES take responsibility.

(In fact, at least in the UK, you're responsible for any serious injury or
loss of life caused by your negligence whether or not there was a
contractual relationship or duty of care, so this kind of disclaimer is
particularly worthless.) 

Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/

• References:
  • Re: License Feedback
    • From: "Andrew S. Townley" <andrew.townley@b...>

• Prev by Date: Re: License Feedback
• Next by Date: Re: License Feedback
• Previous by thread: Re: License Feedback
• Next by thread: Re: License Feedback -- health and safety issues
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread