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

Re: Response to the j2se licencing concerns



On Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 05:08:22PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> > 
> > IMO the last sentence of the above-quoted clause may very well be
> > DFSG-unfree...in which case the code licensed under it should be yanked.
>
> I don't think it is. DFSG does not require that the software can be
> redistributed under different releases. Thus anybody can shield
> himself form the effect of this clause simply by not redistributing
> the software under a different release. If the set of "any such terms
> Recipient offers" is empty, no liability can possibly be incurred by
> SGI as a result of such non-existing terms, thus the cannot possibly
> apply.
[...]
> Exactly. The *additional* permission to do something which we don't
> want any permission to do at all, can *never* make the license less
> free than it would have been without that permission - no matter which
> conditions that additional permission had.

Okay, I agree with this assessment.  Licenses do not have to forbid
relicensing under proprietary terms to be DFSG-free.

As long as indemnification clauses do not apply to software when it is
licensed under DFSG-compatible terms, it's hunky-dory.

Thanks for helping to sort out the legalese.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson                |
Debian GNU/Linux                   |       "Bother," said Pooh, as he was
branden@debian.org                 |       assimilated by the Borg.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |

Attachment: pgpTe6qVdbNfy.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: