Re: NEdit Text Editor License for Review
On Tue, Jun 15, 1999 at 04:22:48PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Mark Edel <edel@ltx.com> writes:
>
> > I'm still a bit worried that it only implicitly allows modification
> > and redistribution, and not explicitly.
>
> The implicit permission to redistribute is probably OK, but I find it
> hard to see even an implicit permission to modify.
"...products, processes or services derived from the Software". You hold
them harmless WRT derived products, so it implicitly gives you the right to
make such derived products -- which I dought would hold up in a court of law.
> > The User shall indemnify URA and the U.S. Government for all damages, costs
> > or expenses, including attorney's fees, arising from the utilization of the
> > software, including, but not limited to, the making, using, selling or
> > exporting of products, processes or services derived from the
> > Software.
>
> So if I use the software, and the U.S. government use the software
> independently of me and get themselves into trouble, they can sue me to
> cover their expenses?
This is the United States -- you can sue anybody for anything. Then again,
in this case it seems clear to me that they wouldn't have a snowballs chance
in <bleep> of winning. Then again, this is the United States. (But note
that the packager should separately inemnify himself -- unlike the GPL, this
does NOT form a waver of warranty on behalf of anybody but the US Government
and URA.)
-=- James Mastros
--
First they came for the fourth amendment, but I said nothing because I
wasn't a drug dealer. Then they came for the sixth amendment, but I kept
quiet because I wasn't guilty. Finally they came for the first amendment,
and by then it was too late to say anything at all."
-=- Nancy Lebowitz
cat /dev/urandom|james --insane=yes > http://www.rtweb.net/theorb/
ICQ: 1293899 AIM: theorbtwo YPager: theorbtwo
Reply to: