Re: Global IP Sound iLBC Public License, v2.0 - IETF Version
George Danchev <email@example.com> wrote:
> I would like to read your comments about the "Global IP Sound iLBC Public
> License, v2.0 - IETF Version - Limited Commercial Use"  .
> Please also see the ftpmaster references at #319201. [...]
> Sounds non-free to me since it limits the commercial use at least.
I agree. Additionally, it forces grant of permission to GIPS,
discriminates against agents of other businesses, has a choice
of venue clause and the patent licence doesn't follow DFSG.
Incomplete commentary follows:
> 1.10 â??Personal Useâ?? means use of Covered Code by an individual solely for
> personal, private, and non-commercial purposes. Use of Covered Code in an
> individualâ??s capacity as an officer, employee, member, independent
> contractor, or agent of a corporation, business, or organization (commercial
> or non-commercial) does not qualify as Personal Use. [...]
which combines with:
> (A) Personal Use: You may use, reproduce, display, perform, modify and
> distribute Original Code, with or without Modifications, solely for Your
> Personal Use; [...]
> (B) Deployment: You may use, reproduce, display, perform, modify, and Deploy
> Covered Code, provided that
> 1. You must satisfy all the conditions of Section 2.1(A), and
> 2. Covered Code may be Deployed only in compliance with the then-applicable
> IETF Standard, and Modifications must not change the format of the bitstream.
> (C) You may create a Larger Work by combining Covered Code with other code and
> distribute the Larger Work as a single product; but You must ensure that the
> requirements of this License, including Section 2.1(B)(2), are fulfilled. [...]
Discrimination against impersonal, public and commercial purposes,
because there is no grant for them to create non-standard modified
versions or change the format of the bitstream.
> 2.3 Limitations. Except as expressly stated in Section 2.1, no other rights
> (including patent rights), express or implied, are granted by GIPS.
> Modifications and Larger Works of GIPS may require additional patent and
> other licenses from GIPS which GIPS may grant in its sole discretion. [...]
This patent licence seems not to allow derived works to be
distributed under the same licence. If there are applicable
patents, this isn't good enough to meet DFSG.
> 2.4 Registration. You must register Your Deployment (non-personal) use of the
> Original Code and acceptance of this License by completing Appendix A and
> returning it to GIPS as indicated (or providing equivalent information to
Notification requirement. Yippee.
> 2.5 Your Grants. In consideration of and as a condition to the licenses
> granted to You, You hereby grant to GIPS, under Your applicable patent and
> other intellectual property rights, an unrestricted, non-exclusive,
> worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, and irrevocable license to (a) Your
> Modifications and (b) any error reports or other feedback you provide to GIPS
> regarding the Original Code.
Forced granting of rights to GIPS, even if they aren't a recipient of
the modified version. I see that as a fee and discrimination against
private supply of modified versions.
> 3.2 Your Distribution License. You may choose to offer, and to charge a fee
> for, warranty, support, indemnity, or liability obligations and other rights
> consistent with the scope of this License (â??Additional Termsâ??) to recipients
> of Covered Code, provided, however, that: (a) You may do so only on Your own
> behalf and as Your sole responsibility, and not on behalf of GIPS; (b) You
> must make it absolutely clear that Additional Terms are offered by You alone,
> and not by GIPS; and (c) the license may not limit or alter the recipient's
> rights in Original Code version from the rights set forth in this License.
> You hereby agree to defend and indemnify GIPS regarding any claims asserted
> against GIPS relating to any Additional Terms.
Same problem as CDDL, discriminating against support agents of other
people. Why don't they just say "not on behalf of GIPS"? Why all this
crap against offering services on behalf of others too?
> 10.6 Dispute Resolution; Governing Law. This License is governed by the laws
> of the United States and the State of California. Choice of law rules do not
> apply, regardless of jurisdiction. Any litigation relating to this License is
> subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts of the Northern District of
> California, with venue in San Francisco County, California, and You and GIPS
> hereby consent to personal jurisdiction and venue therein with respect to
> this License. [...]
Choice of venue, which I regard as ability to cause payment for use.
This choice of law and venue makes the Quebec clause seem odd.
Hope that helps,
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct