Re: Export clauses in XFree86 licensing
On Tuesday, Sep 16, 2003, at 16:19 US/Eastern, Henning Makholm wrote:
7. Compliance with Laws; Non-Infringement. Recipient shall comply with
applicable laws and regulations in connection with use and
the Subject Software, including but not limited to, all export and
control laws and regulations of the U.S. government and other
Well, I'm a US citizen so they already apply to me, but it seems
non-free to make e.g., the Finnish comply with "all export and import
control laws and regulations of the U.S. government" Especially things
like the EAR's definition of "munitions."
Recipient may not distribute Subject Software that (i) in any way
(directly or contributorily) the rights (including patent, copyright,
secret, trademark or other intellectual property rights of any kind)
other person or entity
This might be interpretable to make someone follow e.g., U.S. patents
on software, even where such patents are not otherwise enforceable.
or (ii) breaches any representation or warranty,
express, implied or statutory, which under any applicable law it might
deemed to have been distributed.
I have no idea what this means! Could it be that if XFree86 is
distributed by someone representing it supports video card X, I can't
distribute a version that doesn't? That'd be a serious problem with
DFSG 3, of course.
Or does it just mean I can't claim it supports card X when it doesn't?
Or does it mean that I can't disclaim warranty?
8. Claims of Infringement. If Recipient at any time has knowledge of
or more third party claims that reproduction, modification, use,
tion, import or sale of Subject Software (including particular
or code incorporated in Subject Software) infringes the third party's
lectual property rights, Recipient must place in a well-identified web
bearing the title "LEGAL" a description of each such claim and a
of the party making each such claim in sufficient detail that a user
Subject Software will know whom to contact regarding the claim.
This seems non-free and even undistributable by Debian. Debian would
need to create and update this page.
Not sure which portions of XFree this license applies to, but I bet I
can come up with some material. I'll then just mail -legal about it and
Debian will have to put up a page describing it.
gaining such knowledge of any such claim, Recipient must conspicuously
include the URL for such web page in the Exhibit A notice required
tions 2 and 3, above, and in the text of any related documentation,
agreement or collateral in which Recipient describes end user's rights
ing to the Subject Software.
Cool! "related documentation ... or collateral in which [Debian]
describes end user's rights relating to the Subject Software" We
describe the end user's rights relating to that software --- as well as
all other software in Debian --- at
<http://www.debian.org/social_contract.html>; this should be fun.
If Recipient obtains such knowledge after it
makes Subject Software available to any other person or entity,
shall take other steps (such as notifying appropriate mailing lists or
groups) reasonably calculated to inform those who received the Subject
ware that new knowledge has been obtained.
So Debian would be compelled to notify all our users about it with
steps "reasonably calculated to inform those who received the Subject
Software." Not sure what those steps would have to be, but I'd assume
fairly extensive. I doubt even mailing -announce would be enough.
7. Claims of Infringement. If Recipient learns of any third party claim
that any disposition of Covered Code and/or functionality wholly or
partially infringes the third party's intellectual property rights,
Recipient will promptly notify SGI of such claim.
This is doable, though it'd require Debian to do a lot of book keeping
("if we learn of infringement in X, notify Y. If we learn about it in