RE: Steelblue license
On Tue, 31 Oct 2000, William T Wilson wrote:
> Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 14:51:08 -0500 (EST)
> From: William T Wilson <fluffy@snurgle.org>
> To: Jeffry Smith <smith@missioncriticallinux.com>
> Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
> Subject: RE: Steelblue license
>
> On Tue, 31 Oct 2000, Jeffry Smith wrote:
>
> > > > 4. Termination clause.
> > >
> > > It terminates if you violate it, not just because they say so.
> >
> > How do they determine you violated it? Also, it requires you to
>
> I imagine they would have to pursue legal action for this. There is
> nothing in the license that specifies that they get to determine whether
> you violated it or not, so it would go to standard license-violation
> methods.
>
> > destroy all copies, so even you can't use it. I probably would have
>
> But there is no DFSG or moral advantage to requiring people to tolerate
> violations of the license agreement.
Not suggesting that, but, like the standard EULA, this license
actually does cover use, as well as copying. Under GPL, if I violate
the GPL, I can be sued, but afterwards, I still have right to use the
software, just not share.
Note also, because of their claim of all rights, and of whatever they
determine to be the program ("The term "Program" shall include all
portions thereof, all versions, releases, upgrades, enhancements,
improvements, modifications, updates and all derivatives, as
determined by TCG to be part of the Program. "), how do you know they
won't change the terms on you?
Also, I don't know of any "standard" license-violation methods, except
the BSA's "let's raid, shutdown, & charge" method. Part of the
problem is that most EULA's are on questionable ground to begin with,
as they restrict rights granted by copyright. This is quesitonable
because, under contract law, a contract has to be entered into by two
parties based on offer & acceptance. How do you determine I accepted
you license? In the case of the GPL, BSD, & X licenses, it's fairly
easy: I exercised rights not granted under copyright, but granted
under that license (GPL spells this out for you). IF I exercise a
right not granted by the license, & granted by copyright, have I
violated the license?
An interesting point is that, as I read their "MODIFICATIONS" line, I
have to provide source code to them (what if they go out of
business? - now I can't fulfill the license, so I can't distribute),
but NOT to downstream.
I'm willing, if people will comment on the license go back to them
with suggestions. My main ones at this point are for them to switch
the license to either:
1. GPL
2. LGPL (if they don't mind people doing proprietary work with the
code, but want the mods donated back).
3. BSD / X (non-advertising one) (if they don't mind people doing
what they want with the code).
4. MPL - has some nice patent protections that the LGPL doesn't have,
but is incompatible with the GPL (or so I understand).
I would love to see more folks just use the basic licenses that are
out there, rather than everyone writing their own.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffry Smith Technical Sales Consultant Mission Critical Linux
smith@missioncriticallinux.com phone:603.930.9739 fax:978.446.9470
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: