On Wed, 17 Jul 2002, Karl O . Pinc wrote:

> Sorry I don't have time to do as you ask.  Instead, read the new BSD
> license.   Or just this part of the old BSD license:

I'm quite familiar with both.

> Then ask yourself why everybody bothers to use it.

Well, we BSD folks use it because that's the license on the old code,
and we can't change that because we don't own the copyright on it.

I expect the original Regents used it because they imposed further
conditions on use (such as the advertising clause), and because
they were charging for the tapes (paying for a tape set was the
only way to get the stuff). Both of these could be interpreted as
consideration, and thus an argument could be made that there was
a contract created. At that point, a lot of the standard stuff to
do with contracts kicks in (they have to be fair, etc.), and who
knows where you might end up. So yes, I can see perfectly well why
they might feel they needed a disclaimer.

For something in the public domain, on the other hand, as I pointed out
before, I don't see that there *can* be a contract created, because
there is no consideration to one of the parties, so all the conditions
that come along with the existence of a contract wouldn't apply.

However, I'm quite willing to be corrected on this, if you've got
an argument with some supporting evidence.

cjs
-- 
Curt Sampson  <cjs@cynic.net>   +81 90 7737 2974   http://www.netbsd.org
    Don't you know, in this new Dark Age, we're all light.  --XTC