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

Re: SGI Free SW license 1.1 compatability with Xfree86 style license

>>>>> On 05 Jul 2000 16:05:56 +0200, Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net> said:

 Henning> Scripsit James LewisMoss <jimdres@mindspring.com>
 >> On 30 Jun 2000 18:49:01 +0200, Henning Makholm
 >> <henning@makholm.net> said:

 Henning> That is a very broad clause: "Recipient will .. indemnify
 Henning> .. SGI from, .. any loss ... arising out of Recipient's use
 Henning> .. of the Covered Code". That seems to mean that if I use
 Henning> the software in a business that competes successfully with
 Henning> SGI, they could sue me and demand that I pay up for their
 Henning> lost profits. If that's a legal interpretation I'd say this
 Henning> is quite nonfree.

 >> This reads to me just as a no warranty clause.

 Henning> That is probably the intent of it. However, can you refuse
 Henning> that my reading is one of the cases the language actually
 Henning> covers?

Actually yes.  It looks like a standard no warranty clause.  It uses
big words and could have been clearer by just saying NO WARRANTY, but
I don't see your reading in it.


@James LewisMoss <dres@debian.org>      |  Blessed Be!
@    http://jimdres.home.mindspring.com |  Linux is kewl!
@"Argue for your limitations and sure enough, they're yours." Bach

Reply to: