On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 5:58 PM, Rahul Sundaram <sundaram@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: >> >> On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 15:54 +0200, Simon Wesp wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I want to start a review request and the application i packed is >>> published under Beerware [1] which is not listed in Licensing [2]. I'm not >>> sure, if i can do this, because there is no no-warrenty clausel in it. >>> Would you say Beerware is a good license, or not? >> >> Effectively, this is Copyright only. These sorts of "joke licenses" >> probably won't hold up in court, but we probably don't inherit any >> serious legal risk from them. > > Upstream should be advised to move to some standard permissive license like > the MIT or revised 2-clause BSD license. Without a disclaimer, there is some > legal risk for the developers especially in U.S. Theoretically, couldn't we slap some kind of 2-clause license on it when redistributing it ourselves, just to protect our own behinds? Better yet, I propose the 3-beer clause license. The first two clauses are analogous to a standard 2-clause BSD license, and the third offers the recommendation to buy 1) the author, 2) the packager and 3) the user a round of beers. -Yaakov -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
