Re: Postfix
> This clause clearly fails the DFSG:
> > In the event an intellectual property claim is made or appears likely to
> > be made with respect to the Software, you agree to permit IBM to enable
> > you to continue to use the Software, or to modify it, or replace it with
> > software that is at least functionally equivalent. If IBM determines
> > that none of these alternatives is reasonably available, you agree, at
> > IBM's request, upon notice to you, to discontinue further distribution of
> > the Software and to delete or destroy all copies of the Software you
> > possess. This is IBM's entire obligation to you regarding any claim of
> > infringement.
>
> This says that IBM may revoke the license and order all copies of the
> Software destroyed if IBM believes that someone may be about to sue them
> over it. No way can that be DFSG compliant.
(After a brief chat with an HP's IP attorney...)
Unfortunately, failure to include such a clause really increases the
exposure of the author to successful infringement claims: you may suddenly
become responsible for the actions of everyone you gave the software to,
since you granted them license to things you didn't own.
If you use DFSG compliant software which is found to be infringing on a
third parties IP, you still have no license...
I guess the bottom line is that I think Wietse did everything he could
to release it as completely free, and it would be a shame if we couldn't
put it in main.
I think that the change below would satisfy the DFSG. The real question
is what you folks think...
Wietse - any chance of getting it changed to read something like:
... of the Software you possess. This revocation of the license shall
apply only to the possibly infringing intellectual property, and not
the rest of the Software. If you are able to directly resolve the
claim with the plaintif, you may continue to use and distribute the
Software under the terms of this agreement, as further restricted by
the claim resolution. This is IBM's entire ....
lamont
Reply to: