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

fresh review of: CDDL

Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> wrote:

> At the same time, I'd like to experiment with an idea I've been toying
> with for a slightly more (informally) directed approach to license
> analysis, that should prove harder to derail with long pointless
> tangents and more immune to revisionism by the hecklers. [...]

How's that brass neck coming along? Anyway, ever the optimist,
I'll try.

> [License follows as inline MIME foo]

Backspaces removed. Here I go, without looking at the history,
cutting parts I've not commented upon:

>             **** COMMON DEVELOPMENT AND DISTRIBUTION LICENSE (CDDL)
>                                Version 1.0 ****
>     * 1. Definitions.
>[...]      o 1.13. "You" (or "Your") means an individual or a legal entity
>             exercising rights under, and complying with all of the terms of,
>             this License. For legal entities, "You" includes any entity which
>             controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with You.
>             For purposes of this definition, "control" means (a) the power,
>             direct or indirect, to cause the direction or management of such
>             entity, whether by contract or otherwise, or (b) ownership of more
>             than fifty percent (50%) of the outstanding shares or beneficial
>             ownership of such entity.

By the way, this (b) seems an unusual definition of control. When
I've seen this defined for cybercrime, it's usually the executive
directors, not the majority shareholder too. I don't think it has
clear implications for meeting DFSG, but it smells odd. Is it 
usual in the US to class all companies someone owns more than half
of as an extension of that person?

>     * 2. License Grants.
>           o 2.1. The Initial Developer Grant.
>             Conditioned upon Your compliance with Section 3.1 below and subject
>             to third party intellectual property claims, the Initial Developer
>             hereby grants You a world-wide, royalty-free, non-exclusive
>             license:
>                 # (a) under intellectual property rights (other than patent or
>                   trademark) Licensable by Initial Developer, to use,
>                   reproduce, modify, display, perform, sublicense and
>                   distribute the Original Software (or portions thereof), with
>                   or without Modifications, and/or as part of a Larger Work;
>                   and
>                 # (b) under Patent Claims infringed by the making, using or
>                   selling of Original Software, to make, have made, use,
>                   practice, sell, and offer for sale, and/or otherwise dispose
>                   of the Original Software (or portions thereof).
>                 # (c) The licenses granted in Sections 2.1(a) and (b) are
>                   effective on the date Initial Developer first distributes or
>                   otherwise makes the Original Software available to a third
>                   party under the terms of this License.
>                 # (d) Notwithstanding Section 2.1(b) above, no patent license
>                   is granted: (1) for code that You delete from the Original
>                   Software, or (2) for infringements caused by: (i) the
>                   modification of the Original Software, or (ii) the
>                   combination of the Original Software with other software or
>                   devices.
>           o 2.2. Contributor Grant.
>             Conditioned upon Your compliance with Section 3.1 below and subject
>             to third party intellectual property claims, each Contributor
>             hereby grants You a world-wide, royalty-free, non-exclusive
>             license:
>                 # (a) under intellectual property rights (other than patent or
>                   trademark) Licensable by Contributor to use, reproduce,
>                   modify, display, perform, sublicense and distribute the
>                   Modifications created by such Contributor (or portions
>                   thereof), either on an unmodified basis, with other
>                   Modifications, as Covered Software and/or as part of a Larger
>                   Work; and
>                 # (b) under Patent Claims infringed by the making, using, or
>                   selling of Modifications made by that Contributor either
>                   alone and/or in combination with its Contributor Version (or
>                   portions of such combination), to make, use, sell, offer for
>                   sale, have made, and/or otherwise dispose of:
>                   (1) Modifications made by that Contributor (or portions
>                   thereof); and (2) the combination of Modifications made by
>                   that Contributor with its Contributor Version (or portions of
>                   such combination). [...]

So this long tract appears to allow free redistribution as long
as s3.1 doesn't contradict that. I'm puzzled why only s3.1 is
cited, as the other parts seem to restrict it too.

Appears to allow derived works under the same licence.

>     * 3. Distribution Obligations.
>           o 3.1. Availability of Source Code.
>             Any Covered Software that You distribute or otherwise make
>             available in Executable form must also be made available in Source
>             Code form and that Source Code form must be distributed only under
>             the terms of this License. You must include a copy of this License
>             with every copy of the Source Code form of the Covered Software You
>             distribute or otherwise make available. You must inform recipients
>             of any such Covered Software in Executable form as to how they can
>             obtain such Covered Software in Source Code form in a reasonable
>             manner on or through a medium customarily used for software
>             exchange.

Requires source code. Good.

>[...]      o 3.3. Required Notices.
>             You must include a notice in each of Your Modifications that
>             identifies You as the Contributor of the Modification. You may not
>             remove or alter any copyright, patent or trademark notices
>             contained within the Covered Software, or any notices of licensing
>             or any descriptive text giving attribution to any Contributor or
>             the Initial Developer.

*Any* descriptive text giving attribution? Like a huge advert?
Unacceptable restriction on modification? Check each package :-(

>           o 3.4. Application of Additional Terms.
>             You may not offer or impose any terms on any Covered Software in
>             Source Code form that alters or restricts the applicable version of
>             this License or the recipients' rights hereunder. You may choose to
>             offer, and to charge a fee for, warranty, support, indemnity or
>             liability obligations to one or more recipients of Covered
>             Software. However, you may do so only on Your own behalf, and not
>             on behalf of the Initial Developer or any Contributor. You must
>             make it absolutely clear that any such warranty, support, indemnity
>             or liability obligation is offered by You alone, and You hereby
>             agree to indemnify the Initial Developer and every Contributor for
>             any liability incurred by the Initial Developer or such Contributor
>             as a result of warranty, support, indemnity or liability terms You
>             offer.

This has some wording that I think may have unexpected
implications for business.  Does it discriminate against people
who are licensed under another agreement to offer warranty,
support, indemnity or liability obligations on behalf of the
Initial Developer or any Contributor?

I think I appreciate what this is trying to do, but it seems
to contaminate agent agreements. Oops. I hope that debian
main won't contain such business-unfriendly terms, but I'm
not sure what DFSG covers this possible unfriendliness,
whether it's a combination of several or whether debian
gives a toss about licensed support agents.

>[...]* 9. MISCELLANEOUS.
>       This License represents the complete agreement concerning subject matter
>       hereof. If any provision of this License is held to be unenforceable,
>       such provision shall be reformed only to the extent necessary to make it
>       enforceable. This License shall be governed by the law of the
>       jurisdiction specified in a notice contained within the Original Software
>       (except to the extent applicable law, if any, provides otherwise),
>       excluding such jurisdiction's conflict-of-law provisions. Any litigation
>       relating to this License shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the
>       courts located in the jurisdiction and venue specified in a notice
>       contained within the Original Software, with the losing party responsible
>       for costs, including, without limitation, court costs and reasonable
>       attorneys' fees and expenses. [...]

Deep joy. A possible arbitrary lawyer-fee-bomb, depending on
the venue specified and its sanity. Check every package for
its venue and see whether it allows free redistribution. :-(

I didn't notice any renaming requirements, debian-specifics or
contamination of other software.

-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Reply to: