Re: General Gaming Public License, GGPL

[Ben Crowder <mlcrowd@enol.com>]

On Mon, 30 Aug 1999, Michael Dale Long wrote:

> On Tue, 31 Aug 1999, Philipp Gühring wrote:
> 
> > ---------------
> >   13. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN
> > WRITING WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY
> > AND/OR REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU
> > FOR THE TIME OR MONEY YOU LOST WHEN PLAYING, WATCHING OR LISTENING TO
> > THE GAME.
> > ---------------
> 
> Seems kinda silly to have to add a clause like that.  But if enough people
> are concerned, why don't you propose that the FSF add a clause like this
> to the official (L)GPL:
> 
> ---------------
>   13. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN
> WRITING WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY
> AND/OR REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU
> FOR THE TIME OR MONEY LOST AS A RESULT OF ANY USE OF THE PROGRAM.
> ---------------
> 
> That would be a more general blanket.  But is this really a problem?
> Isn't it covered by the "no warranty" clause?
> 
> 	-Michael
> 
> Please note, that I am not lawyer, nor am I law student.  In fact, I've
> never even been inside my university's School of Law.   My statements
> are suggestions based on my personal opinions, and only should be
> considered as such.

Am I mistaken, or was the original post tongue-in-cheek?  That's what it
seemed like to me -- but then again, I could be wrong (but I don't think
anybody would take legal action against a game developer for time lost
playing a game -- heck, I spent days playing Zelda 3 -- but that wasn't
lost time).

Anyhow, just my $0.02,
Ben