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


"Henning Makholm" <henning@makholm.net> wrote in message [🔎] 87fysei99v.fsf@kreon.lan.henning.makholm.net">news:[🔎] 87fysei99v.fsf@kreon.lan.henning.makholm.net...
Scripsit Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org>

          o 3.2. Modifications.
            The Modifications that You create or to which You
            contribute are governed by the terms of this License.

I think this is sloppy language - the licensor cannot unilaterally
make his license apply to code produced by the licensee; he can only
demand that the licensee does so - but I don't see it as a showstoppper.

Um.. look at the definition of modification:
A. Any file that results from an addition to, deletion from or modification of the contents of a file containing Original Software or previous Modifications; B. Any new file that contains any part of the Original Software or previous Modification; or C. Any new file that contains any part of the Original Software or previous Modification; or

In the case of 'C' this is a no-op.
Not that the clause has any legal effect. Your licence to distribute is contingent upon only 3.1 The other 3.x s look to be conditions that could be referenced from sections 1.x and 2.x but are not, making them dubious.

If the references to section 3.1 were intended to be references to section 3 then the condition would apply, but would not actually be unilaterally be licencing, but be naming a condition which must be met to recive the licence to distribute.

            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

Yet Another Obnoxious Indemnification Clause. Can be free only under
the theory that it is a legal no-op in all relevant jurisdictions.

The text says that if you offer warrenty, support, indemity, or liablily terms to your customers, you must indemify upstream. This is to prevent upstream from becoming liable for something that you did. If you offer a warenty fine.

But you may not offer a warenty that could make upstram liable unless you indemify upstream. The idea is that if you supply a warrenty and a user tries to sue upstream under YOUR warenty, you must step in to prevent upstream from being held liable.

Perfectly reasonable, IMHO.

Reply to: