"Henning Makholm" <email@example.com> wrote in message
Scripsit Andrew Suffield <firstname.lastname@example.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
B. Any new file that contains any part of the Original Software or previous
C. Any new file that contains any part of the Original Software or previous
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
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
But you may not offer a warenty that could make upstram liable unless you
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
Perfectly reasonable, IMHO.
- Re: CDDL
- From: MJ Ray <email@example.com>
- From: Andrew Suffield <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Re: CDDL
- From: Henning Makholm <email@example.com>