Re: Another license from the big boys: AT&T
"Ross J. Reedstrom" <email@example.com> writes:
> and the license is:
> Looks a little more open than the some other big-company licenses.
Hm, I don't think so.
> The biggest show-stopper I see is they require
> a written licensing agreement for redistribution between the licensee
> and third parties, with an attached sample minimum license.
They actually commit every single of the classic errors in addition:
- there is a 'you must send us your patch' clause
- there is a termination clause with a 'you must monitor our website'
- there is an U.S. export law clause
- there is even a 'you must not charge money for the software' clause
It is somewhat weakened in the main license, but in the relicensing
template the relicensee agrees to "distribute, without charge, such
source code to any third parties requesting a copy"