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

Re: CDDL



On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 19:28:46 +0100 Andrew Suffield wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 03:55:56PM +0200, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> > The discussions on 
> > CDDL in 2005-01 seem to have petered out inconclusively.
> 
> Let's do something about this.

OK, let's try!  :)

        **** COMMON DEVELOPMENT AND DISTRIBUTION LICENSE (CDDL)
                           Version 1.0 ****
[...]
>     o 3.3. Required Notices.
>       You must include a notice in each of Your Modifications that
>       identifies You as the Contributor of the Modification.

This might fail the Dissident test (and thus discriminate against
persons who do not want or must not be identified: DFSG#5), depending on
how "identifies" is interpreted.
Would a pseudonym and associated e-mail address at a convenient nym
server suffice to satisfy this clause?
Or must the Contributor's identity be disclosed?

[clause 3.3 goes on]
>       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.

This could open the possibility to include GFDL-style Invariant
Sections, if "descriptive text" is interpreted broadly enough. In that
case this would fail DFSG#3.

[...]
> 9. MISCELLANEOUS.
[...]
> 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.

This is choice of venue and fails DFSG#5.

> The application of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the
> International Sale of Goods is expressly excluded.

This license claims to have the Power To Nuke Laws(TM).
I don't know (IANAL) if the above-mentioned convention has a clause
which states that its application can be expressly excluded.
If this is the case, I'm a little concerned, because we do not actually
know the effects of this exclusion, without reading through the *whole*
convention...  :-(
If this is *not* the case, I would say this exclusion attempt is
unenforceable.

> Any law or
> regulation which provides that the language of a contract shall be
> construed against the drafter shall not apply to this License.

More Power To Nuke Laws(TM)...
If this is enforceable (is it?), I'm more and more concerned about the
above quoted unclear clauses, since any ambiguities could be interpreted
against the *Licensee* (rather than the *drafter*).


-- 
    :-(   This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS?   ;-)
......................................................................
  Francesco Poli                             GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment: pgpOIChK8f9IA.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: