Subject: Re: For Approval: Non-Profit OSL 3.0
From: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 07:50:43 +0100

Lawrence Rosen wrote:

> I'll try to answer that question rather than put the burden on IETF's
> attorney to do so. That requirement was made because (in my opinion) open
> source customers should expect their *commercial* (i.e., for-profit)
> software suppliers to offer a warranty of provenance and to accept liability
> for direct damages. 

I'd still say it was discrimination against a field of endeavour.  I 
think you should strike it and include explanatory text, outside of the 
formal, legal, requirements, explaining the benefits of making the 
warranty (i.e. people are more likely to use the software).

-- 
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.