Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-project (539 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-project] Proposed changes to EULA for next release
  • From: "pistazienfresser (see profile)" <pistazienfresser@xxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 19:09:51 +0100
  • Message-id: <>
Am 24/03/11 09:43, schrieb Andreas Jaeger:
* A large part is taken by openSUSE being under Utah/US laws and
limitations. I beg this is linked to Novell being american, when most
devs are from germany. I beg we can't avoid this...


Maybe someone could ask my colleges (in Utah? from Novell?) if and in
what rate/in what amount they have considered the interests of the SUSE
GmbH and each of the the German/European programmers beside the
interests of the Novell Inc.?

The document wasdiscussed on this list a couple of years ago, you can read
some background about it at:

We really tried to use a generic, easy to understand document that is as open
as the software we distribute ;).
I do not have any objections to an easy to understand document.
To be bold I think I do not really understand the complete meaning of
all the phrases in the proposal as it most probably will need not only
the knowledge of normal English language but also of the US system of
law including the according US' and especially Utah's laws and courts'

If you have specific concerns, please raise
The sentence: "with the exception of any intently,
knowingly and grossly negligently caused damages" or something like it
is missing.
Because of that the developers (or all openSUSE members) may probably
just be just be liable (in Germany) for *any* negligently caused
damages. Even for those caused by slight negligence.

And I think I have described my concerns really specific (maybe too
Am 23/03/11 19:07, schrieb pistazienfresser (see profile):
Have they also estimated
the probability that and
possible amount of claim if
a (German?) judge/court rates German/European/Korean/... law applicable?

Have they thought about explicitly referring to "vorsätzlichem"
(approximately translated en: indented or knowingly) and "grob
fahrlässigem" (approximately translated en: grossly negligently)
behaving? I apprehend the hole clause for exclusions of liability would
be rated null and void without an explicit exception of any intently,
knowingly and grossly negligently caused damages.[1]

See: § 309 No. 7 and § 306 Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (BGB) and you may
also just google/look in a book for "Verbot der geltungserhaltenden
[edited: sorry this belongs to the same topic]
further reading:
de: (with links to court decisions
and some papers)
en (translated text of the law):

The accordingly problem of a mostly invalid standard form contracts
(invalid because of the same reason) was discussed just on this same
list a few weeks ago:
- and
- and

Compare also for possible wordings the English translation and
explaining of the old CC-de-1.0 under 6. under

If you have any specific questions on that issues/bugs, you may raise
them. Most probably I will be able to give references to more materials
if wanted.

But I still would prefer if you would ask someone with a insurance
backing for that.

I heard no objection to the changes I proposed
No not to the changes. Just the hole clause about liability. What is the
sense in this EULA without a valid exemption from liability?

- so let's move forward with
them, while we can continue discussing specific concerns for those areas that
are in the document for more than 2 years now,

Have a lot of luck/fun in discussing

To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >