[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

IBM public license

This is what I got back from IBM's attorney. Given that there seem to be other
problems that would prevent GPL compatibility, I don't think I'll pursue this



> I am a little confused by the scenario, but let me try to help. I am not sure
> why C would go to B for anything but nevertheless I
> think the answer will turn on the exact language of A's agreement and what
> obligation they seek to pass on. If the language
> was crisp and clear and the obligation was an enforceable one I would think that
> A could require it to be passed on and B would
> have accepted that obligation when they took the object code (and accepted the
> associated license agreement).  However, I am
> not sure whether C would have legal "standing" to sue B on the obligation that
> they failed to adhere to in A's agreement - because
> the "agreement" with the obligation is officially between A and B and not C.
> But there is a theory called at third party beneficiary -
> so C could try to argue that they were the intended third party beneficiary of
> the Agreement between A and B and therefore C should be
> able to pursue B if they fail to live up to their obligation. Please note,
> however, that the third party beneficiary theory is subject to a number
> of caveats and may or may not apply- the outcome will likely focus on the
> language of A's agreement. For example, if A's agreement had an
> express provision that said that all persons to which B gives the code are
> intended third party beneficiaries to this Agreement
> there would be a stronger argument that C would have the right to go after B in
> court.
> That is not to say that even if C does not have a right to sue B on the
> Agreement between A and B -  that C can still convince
> A to sue B for B's failure to adhere to the terms of their agreement.  I am not
> sure if this helps..... but  If you would like to provide
> me the exact wording of the obligation I may be able to help you further. Also,
> just wondering does this have anything to do
> with the IBM Public License?

Reply to: