Re: [HACKERS] Re: Revised Copyright: is this more palatable?

On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, Jim Wise wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Tue, 4 Jul 2000, John Daniels wrote:
> 
> >Several people have complained about forking from the BSD license.  If the 
> >BSD license is so flawed, why not open the discussion to FreeBSD and other 
> >BSD license users.  If the license truely is flawed, it can be "fixed" for 
> >all.  Then no one can claim: 1) a PostgreSQL fork, 2) kow tow to corporate 
> >interests.
> >
> >People joining this discussion have varying levels of legal knowledge. It 
> >seems that some clarification by a legal expert on many of these issues is 
> >needed.  And knowing the variability of "expertise" in the legal profession, 
> >and the importance of the issue, I'd recommend a second or third opinion 
> >(opening the discusion as above could help with this).
> 
> One question has been asked several times in this thread, and not,
> AFAICT, answered:
> 
> What is wrong with the current license?
> 
> It's that simple.  What's wrong with the current license?
> 
> I'd like to point out a couple things that are _not_ wrong with the
> current license:
> 
> 1.) With the current license, contributors to the code are not opened
>     to legal liability for the code they contribute.  The BSD license
>     very clearly disclaims all warranty on the part of not only UCB but
>     also all contributors

Actually, this is the only thing that I do feel the current license is
missing ... unless I'm reading something wrong, it all focuses on
disclaming "UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA"s liability ... that one is very
specific ...