in reply to Licensing for Safety

The GPL includes a limited warranty and legiability clause. Or whatever the legal terms may be.

So distributing under that license should protect you.

Regrettably, I don't know how well the GPL stands in court. AFAIK there is no court ruling about this aspect of the GPL, so it's not 'tested' yet. But, it's clearly written by lawyers.

"We are not alone"(FZ)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re (tilly) 2: Licensing for Safety
by tilly (Archbishop) on Apr 25, 2001 at 05:10 UTC
    Read the GPL carefully. In addition to the one in it, you are supposed to put in another disclaimer of warranty. IANAL, but I suspect that if you didn't someone could come up to you and say, Well by section 5 I decided that I didn't want to accept your stupid terms, including your lousy disclaimer, and so I am suing you within an inch of your miserable existence!

    I don't know whether this was possible, but the FSF certainly thought there was some issue or they wouldn't have put in those instructions...

Re: Re: Licensing for Safety
by mothra (Hermit) on Apr 24, 2001 at 19:44 UTC
    It just occurred to me that the GPL probably isn't an option in my particular scenario because of its lack of compatibility (to my understanding, but I may be wrong) with Python's license. Darn...

    Update: Actually, after having read this, Python code seems to be GPL-able in 2.1...but the web host uses v1.5.2...doh, I lose again. :)

      Why would the license of your code be restricted by the license of the interpreter/compiler? Can't you GPL your code, even though the interpreter isn't GPL?