Re: SGI Free SW license 1.1 compatability with Xfree86 style license
Actually Henning's understanding of the nature of the clause is correct.
An indemnity is a different animal than a warranty - they are not
synonymous. A (no) warranty clause in a software license typically addresses
what a licensor guarantees (or does not guarantee) with respect to the
software. If the licensor does not live up to the warranty (if any) e.g. a
warranty that the software would comply with the docs was provided and the
software does not, the remedy is typically breach of contract/termination
(although sometimes other remedies are provided) and the damages would
involve the damages suffered by the licensee (subject to limitation of
An indemnity however typically goes after a different concern (although it
can overlap in coverage in some cases with a warranty e.g. intellectual
property infringement and a warranty of title). An indemnity in a software
license typically addresses losses caused by third parties to one of the
contracting parties. In this case, the clause is trying to protect SGI
(licensor) from losses caused by its licensees' "use" of the SGI code e.g.
product liability suits brought by third parties against SGI caused by the
licensee(s), third-party IP suits against SGI caused by the licensee(s),
etc. A warranty provided (or not) by SGI won't get them that protection
because the warranty/no warranty clause puts no obligation on the
licensee(s). SGI could require a warranty from its licensees but that
probably wouldn't give it the remedies it wants i.e. SGI doesn't merely want
to terminate the agreement - it wants its losses to be covered. The type of
indemnity below is common in OEM/software distribution agreements as well as
in redistributables sections of off-the-shelf commercial software licenses.
This is not legal advice, no attorney-client relationship is established,
From: James LewisMoss <email@example.com>
To: Henning Makholm <firstname.lastname@example.org>
CC: James LewisMoss <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Re: SGI Free SW license 1.1 compatability with Xfree86 style
Date: 05 Jul 2000 22:04:31 -0400
>>>>> On 05 Jul 2000 16:05:56 +0200, Henning Makholm <email@example.com>
Henning> Scripsit James LewisMoss <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> On 30 Jun 2000 18:49:01 +0200, Henning Makholm
>> <email@example.com> 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
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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> | Blessed Be!
@ http://jimdres.home.mindspring.com | Linux is kewl!
@"Argue for your limitations and sure enough, they're yours." Bach
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com