> I've been reading that section as meaning "If you sell something with > with Postfix on it, and what you sell ends up in a lawsuit involving > part of the Postfix written by others that you changed, YOU carry the > burden of defending the portion written by others as well as your own > portion of the defense."
IANAL also If you read #5 and #6 it should be obvious that there is absolutely no warranty of any kind whatsoever attached to the piece of software as offered by the author and contributors. However, if someone is making a commercial product that guarantees feature-x or some performance metric and the product fails to live up to it's warranted claim, then #4 applies to you. In this case, I read #4 to mean that if you distribute with no warranty or liability claimed (e.g. like all of OpenBSD) #4 does not apply. However, if some schmuck takes the OpenBSD-derived stuff and creates a commercial product including it, warranting some feature, then #4 requires that individual to take full responsibility for all shortcomings of their warranted claims and also has to indemnify upstream developers from getting screwed. The net result isn't really too different from someone taking BSD licensed code written by a 3rd party, and selling it with some commercial terms and guaranteed warranty that they can't meet. I think the only real purpose of #4 is to explicity protect upstream developers. Anyway, that's my interpretation :). While it's probably benign, I can see why such a verbose license is rejected by the OpenBSD team. - Justin
