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

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

Scripsit Bolan Meek <Bolan.Meek@wcom.com>
> Henning Makholm wrote:

> And no:  it shouldn't _cause_ loss to SGI if you compete successfully
> with them.  In this kind of case, only SGI's shortsightedness in
> investing unwisely against your competition could cause them loss.

They would have had more money in the end if I did not do it. That's
as close to the everyday use of the word "cause loss" I can imagine
anything to be. 

> I don't remember the license saying "you must idemnify my losses".

Well not in these particular words, but actually it says (ignoring
options that are not relevant for the argument): "Recipient will
idemnify and hold harmless SGI from any loss arising out of
Recipient's use of the Covered Code."

OK. So they do not use the word "cause". But I still cannot see that
that means anything than if I use the program in a way out of which a
loss for SGI can arise, I must pay up. There is no third party
involved in this combination from the clause.

> SGI could say "pay up!", only if it's a tort, a wrongful action
> on your part, not merely something like _competing_ with SGI.
> But that's not what 11. is about.

Exactly - if I did a *wrongful* action that caused SGI loss, I
would be liable to them no matter if the license said anything
about it. Therefore the only sensible explanation of why they
waste words on the clause is that it is meant to apply to *rightful*
action on my part.

> So even "you must idemnify my losses" would mean "If I lose money,
> _because you damage me_ (in a tort), you must pay up".

Under that interpretation the clause would mean nothing at all that
would not be the case if it was absent from the license.

Henning Makholm                          "What has it got in its pocketses?"

Reply to: