Re: ISDA CDS Standard Model Public Licence v0.1
"Anthony W. Youngman" <debian@thewolery.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message
> <[🔎] 20100214.000843.912413905944212857.walter@geodynamics.org>, Walter
> Landry <wlandry@caltech.edu> writes
>>Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au> wrote:
>>> (b) For Source Code and executable versions of any Derivative Works
>>> that
>>> You create for external use to your organization, the following notice
>>> must be provided at the top level (e.g. main screen of an application)
>>> "This application is based on the ISDA CDS Standard Model (version
>>> x.x),
>>> developed and supported in collaboration with Markit Group Ltd." where
>>> "x.x" refers to the version of the ISDA CDS Standard Model on which
>>> Your
>>> Derivative Work is based. It is understood that a work that includes
>>> data derived from calculations that have been attained by using the
>>> ISDA
>>> CDS Standard Model, and is not Source Code or an executable version of
>>> any Derivative Work that You may create for external use to your
>>> organization, shall not be subject to the provisions of this Section.
>>
>>This seems similar to the requirement in the GPL to display
>>"Appropriate Legal Notices". However, it specifies the exact text
>>that must be used, so it is a bit more restrictive. I do not know
>>what the ftpmasters will think of it.
>
> Bearing in mind it is a *major* no-no to alter someone else's
> legalese, I personally would say the two clauses are equivalent.
Not really. It is easier to write something like
This program is based on the ISDA CDS Standard Model, Eclipse,
Classpath, etc.
rather than
This application is based on the ISDA CDS Standard Model (version
x.x), developed and supported in collaboration with Markit Group
Ltd.
This application is based on Eclipse (version x.x), developed and
supported in collaboration with the Eclipse Foundation.
This application is based on the Classpath (version x.x), developed
and supported in collaboration with the Gnu Project.
Also, I wonder about the wording that they require. The phrasing
makes it seems that the developers of the application collaborated
with Markit Group Ltd. What if that is not the case. What if the
application is written by a competitor?
>>> 6. Indemnity for Use of ISDA CDS Standard Model in Derivative Works.
>>>
>>> You hereby agree to indemnify Licensor for any liability incurred by
>>> the
>>> Licensor as a result of the distribution, purchase, sale or use of
>>> Your
>>> Derivative Work.
>>
>>The view of the ftpmasters on indemnification are still a mystery to
>>me. My copy of
>>
>> /usr/share/doc/xserver-xorg-video-v4l/copyright
>>
>>has
>>
>> 11. Indemnity. Recipient shall be solely responsible for damages
>> arising, directly or indirectly, out of its utilization of rights
>> under this License. Recipient will defend, indemnify and hold
>> harmless Silicon Graphics, Inc. from and against any loss,
>> liability, damages, costs or expenses (including the payment of
>> reasonable attorneys fees) arising out of Recipient's use,
>> modification, reproduction and distribution of the Subject Software
>> or out of any representation or warranty made by Recipient.
>>
>>so either xserver-xorg-video-v4l has to be removed or the ftpmasters
>>think it is ok.
>
> Again, it's basically saying "you are responsible for your own
> actions. We provided this stuff with no warranty (if it breaks you get
> to keep both pieces)". So I personally don't see the difference
> between this and a "no warranty" clause.
Um, no. A no warranty clause is saying "Don't sue me".
Indemnification is saying "If someone else sues me, then you pay for
the lawyers and damages."
>>> 9. Acceptance and Termination.
>>>
>>> (a) Except as provided in subparagraph (b) of this Paragraph, this
>>> License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate automatically
>>> if You fail to comply with terms herein and fail to cure such breach
>>> within 30 days of becoming aware of the breach.
>>>
>>> (b) If, at any time, You expressly assented to this License, that
>>> assent
>>> indicates your clear and irrevocable acceptance of this License and
>>> all
>>> of its terms and conditions. If You distribute or communicate copies
>>> of
>>> the ISDA CDS Standard Model or a Derivative Work, You must make a
>>> reasonable effort under the circumstances to obtain the express assent
>>> of recipients to the terms of this License.
>>
>>This is a bigger issue. Requiring explicit assent for licenses is not
>>something that Debian generally does. It is possible to do it (the
>>sun-java packages require you to agree to the licence), but it is
>>unprecedented for a license in main.
>>
> But the big problem with this *sort* of clause is the desert island
> test. And imho this doesn't fail it. First of all it says "reasonable
> effort", not "must". And secondly, it is the *distributor's*
> responsibility, not the recipient's responsibility. The big problem
> that causes a desert island fail is where the recipient is obliged to
> contact the licensor.
Every time I give the software to someone, I have to make a reasonable
effort to ensure that recipients agree to the license. I can not just
put the code up on my website. I have to hide it behind a form so
people can click "I agree". It is a giant pain in the arse, and
something no other package in main requires.
Cheers,
Walter Landry
wlandry@caltech.edu
Reply to: