Re: Postfix
LaMont Jones writes:
> 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 the infringement is innocent and the author promptly notifies the
recipients I find it hard to believe that a court will hold him responsible
for their subsequent actions. Can you cite some precedents? And he did
not grant them a license to things he does not own. He granted them a
license for his software.
> If you use DFSG compliant software which is found to be infringing on a
> third parties IP, you still have no license...
Yes you do. You may need to acquire another license in order to exercise
it, but you have a license.
> This revocation of the license shall apply only to the possibly
> infringing intellectual property, and not the rest of the Software.
This still implies that IBM may revoke because of a mere threat of action.
> 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, on the other hand, refers to the plaintiff, implying that a suit has
actually been filed (but not necessarily settled). It also doesn't really
seem to do anything, since in the absence of such a clause I can still
continue to use and distribute the Software if (and only if) I am able to
resolve the claim directly with the owner of the infringed IP.
I think I see what you are trying to do here, but you need to rephrase it.
--
John Hasler This posting is in the public domain.
john@dhh.gt.org Do with it what you will.
Dancing Horse Hill Make money from it if you can; I don't mind.
Elmwood, Wisconsin Do not send email advertisements to this address.
Reply to: