Re: IBM Public License (again)
Frank Lichtenheld <email@example.com> wrote:
> I just wanted to package a piece of software and saw that it is licensed
> under the IBM Public License (IPL).
> Since the license included some suspicios clauses I searched the list
> archives about it. The findings were confusing:
> - There are many discussions (e.g. , ) about the patent
> clause (§7, paragraph 2) but no consensus on whether it is non-free or not.
> - There are statements that it is free and nobody objected
> - On debian-legal noone ever mentioned the clause (§3, last paragraph)
> "In addition, each Contributor must identify itself as the originator
> of its Contribution, if any, in a manner that reasonably allows
> subsequent Recipients to identify the originator of the Contribution."
> which seems to fail the dissident test. Has the interpretation
> of such clauses changed in the last years or am I misunderstanding
In addition, I noticed clause 4 has an indemnification provision
Therefore, if a Contributor includes the Program in a commercial
product offering, such Contributor ("Commercial Contributor")
hereby agrees to defend and indemnify every other Contributor
("Indemnified Contributor") against any losses, damages and costs
(collectively "Losses") arising from claims, lawsuits and other
legal actions brought by a third party against the Indemnified
Contributor to the extent caused by the acts or omissions of such
Commercial Contributor in connection with its distribution of the
Program in a commercial product offering. The obligations in this
section do not apply to any claims or Losses relating to any actual
or alleged intellectual property infringement.
This is much more limited than the Squeak license, because it is only
for commercial distributors and only for non-IP cases. It still makes
me wonder, though.