[ Thanks to Kevin
Reichard for this link. ]
“As Eric Raymond described, reputation is the currency of
Open Source development. Therefore, it is extremely important that
the author(s) of code be identified and acknowledged. This can
be satisfied by retaining the author’s copyright notice on the
software as it is distributed or modified. However, to protect
their reputations from inferior modifications by different authors,
an Open-Source license may require that it be distributed as
pristine base sources plus separate patches. Similarly, to protect
the author’s reputation, the license may require derivative works
to carry a different name or version number from the original
software. Also some developers, in an effort to protect the use of
their reputation by others, prohibit the use of their name as an
endorsement or to promote derivative products built on the code
they wrote.”
“The major intent here is to protect the use of open source
software in commercial distributions, because as the Rationale for
the Open Source Definition states, “We want commercial users to
join our community, not feel excluded from it.” Also, Open Source
wants to keep the software neutral in controversial or political
areas like genetic research, so that the license cannot restrict
areas of use or groups.”
“The Open Source Definition does not address warranty
provisions, so Open-Source licensing can provide warranties or
provide disclaimers. For most Open-Source licenses, the software is
provided “as is,” usually disclaiming both warranties of
product performance and that the software is noninfringing of the
copyright, patent, or trademark rights of others. Since developers
are not compensated for the production of Open-Source software, if
developers needed to warranty their creations and be subject to
potential legal liability, the willingness of most developers to
participate would be greatly reduced.”