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

Re: License ok? Opinion needed.

To the extent that it is "US specific" in its discrimination, I suppose it is
actually *good* -- this means it is unrestricted for use by the government of,
say, Canada or France.  Indeed I do not think there is any restriction against
their use.

FWIW, this license is for software which has not been actively developed by the
original authors for some 4 years, their company has since been acquired,
though others have continued work on the software.  The new code is all GPL,
LGPL  and other non-troublesome licenses.  Anyhow, I think it is likely to be
difficult or impossible to renegotiate license terms with the original
copyright holder.

Exposing some personal bias here: I wouldn't mind it if the entire Debian
distribution prohibited use by the U.S. Gov't (esp. Janet Reno & Co.) -- they
don't really engage in any legitimate "field of endeavor" after all.  :)

Oh well -- should this go in non-free or main, then?

Joseph Carter wrote:

> Paragraph 9 is US specific which is bad, though whether or not it will
> hurt anything I'm not immediately sure.  It says "government", it should
> say US government if it says anything.  Also, I don't know about the
> references of law they mention---if they apply whether the license says
> they do or not, then it's okay.  OTHERWISE, it's discriminating against
> the US government (or taken at its word as we traditionally do) any
> government.  That would most definitely be discriminatory.
> > 9. GOVERNMENT RESTRICTED RIGHTS. The SOFTWARE and documentation are
> > provided with RESTRICTED RIGHTS. Use duplication, or disclosure by
> > the Government is subject to restrictions as set forth in subparagraph
> > (c)(1)(ii) of The Rights in Technical Data and Computer Software clause
> > in DFARS 252.227-7013, or subparagraphs (c)(i) and (2) of the Commercial
> > Computer Software -- Restricted Rights at 48 CFR 52.227-19, as applicable.
> > Manufacturer is [Company name and address].

Reply to: