| 1 |
Duncan posted on Wed, 13 Aug 2014 20:31:14 +0000 as excerpted: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> liability waiver that's standard for most software (including the GPL) |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
Hmm... More accurately, "(including software covered by the GPL, since |
| 6 |
it includes such a waiver)". |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
The point being, most software has such a waiver, but the difference is, |
| 9 |
with freedomware, the source is available to be examined by either the |
| 10 |
user in question or by someone they trust (like say your distro's package |
| 11 |
maintainer), while with proprietaryware, in the unlikely event that the |
| 12 |
source is (legally) available to anyone but the copyright holder and |
| 13 |
perhaps their employees, it's often covered by NDAs and no-compete |
| 14 |
agreements, etc, such that people still can't fairly judge whether they |
| 15 |
can properly agree to take responsibility for a liability waiver or not. |
| 16 |
"In my ideal world" that wouldn't be possible, the sources would have to |
| 17 |
be available for examination if such a liability waiver were to be asked, |
| 18 |
or it would be illegal to ask for the liability waiver in the first |
| 19 |
place, as the author is deliberately preventing a fair meeting of the |
| 20 |
minds in ordered to negotiate reasonable and fair terms. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Which would of course leave freedomware entirely in the clear, since |
| 23 |
sources are available for it by definition. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 27 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 28 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives