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

Re: Computer Associates Trusted Open Source License



> On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 02:34:24PM +0200, Juhapekka Tolvanen wrote:

> 3.3 If the Program is distributed in object code form, then a
> prominent notice must be included in the code itself as well as in
> any related documentation, stating that the source code for the
> Program is available from the Contributor with information on how
> and where to obtain the source code.

Is it practical for require each distributor to inject such a notice
"in the code itself"? It sounds likely to create trouble for mirror
operators, for example. Backporters of a hypothetical Debian pacakge
wouldn't like it much either.

> 3.4 This License is intended to facilitate the commercial
> distribution of the Program by any Contributor. However,
> Contributors may only charge Recipients a onetime, upfront fee for
> the distribution of the Program. Contributors may not charge
> Recipients any recurring charge, license fee, or any ongoing royalty
> for the Recipient’s exercise of its rights under this License to the
> Program.

This is probably meant well, but the restriction to "a onetime,
upfront fee" seems to mean that I cannot offer people a copy of the
program in exchange for a binding promise to pay me £1 on the 11th of
every June henceforth.

> No Contributor may create any additional liability for other
> Contributors. 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”) who made Contributions to
> the Program distributed by the Commercial 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, including any additional contractual commitments, of
> such Commercial Contributor in connection with its distribution of
> the Program.

Note the recent doubts of the freedom of similar language in the IBM
license used for Graphviz and Postfix.

> 3.6 If Contributor has knowledge that a license under a third
> party’s intellectual property rights is required to exercise the
> rights granted by such Contributor under Sections 2.1 or 2.2,
> Contributor must (a) include a text file with the Program source
> code distribution titled “../IP_ISSUES”, and (b) notify CA in
> writing at

The requirement to notify CA is non-free.

> In addition to the obligatio ns set forth in Section 4, 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.

Clearly fails the Dissident test.

> 5.3 Each Recipient acknowledges that the Program is not intended for
> use in the operation of nuclear facilities, aircraft navigation,
> communication systems, or air traffic control machines in which case
> the failure of the Program could lead to death, personal injury, or
> severe physical or environmental damage.

However, using the program to control railway signalling seems to be
quite fine with the author.

> Any litigation or other dispute resolution between a Recipient and
> CA relating to this License shall take place in the State of New
> York, and Recipient and CA hereby consent to the personal
> jurisdiction of, and venue in, the state and federal courts within
> that district with respect to this License.

Choice of venue.

-- 
Henning Makholm                                          "Skidt med din brud
                                                  når der står et par nymfer
                                     i tyl og trikot i den lysegrønne skov!"



Reply to: