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

Re: why is graphviz package non-free?

On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 11:26:55PM +0100, Bjoern wrote:
> i have read that graphviz is licensed under the Common Public License
> Version 1.0 [1]. The FSF consider this license as free and also in the
> debian-legal mailing-list archive i couldn't find a statement that debian
> have a different view.
> So why this package is in non-free?

I don't know if there are two "graphviz" programs, if it's dual-licensed,
or what; but the license examined previously [1] is very non-free [2].

[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2000/02/msg00399.html
[2] http://www.research.att.com/sw/tools/graphviz/license/index.html

> [1] http://www.graphviz.org/License.php

"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

This is questionable.  I modify your work, removing a feature that somebody
likes, and sell it.  That somebody, as a result ("caused by the act") of me
removing that feature in my redistribution, decides to sue you for allowing
me to do so.  It's a frivelous lawsuit, of course, and you'd probably win,
but it may cost you money--but I don't think a license that requires me to
pay your legal fees in this case is free.  (You might get the money back from
a countersuit, of course, but you might not--and if you have this option
available, you might just elect to make me pay for it all instead of going
back to court.)

I seem to recall this issue being raised with this or some similar
license, but I can't find it.

Glenn Maynard

Reply to: