Re: why is graphviz package non-free?

[Anthony DeRobertis <anthony@derobert.net>]

Glenn Maynard wrote:

> This is questionable.  I modify your work, removing a feature that somebody
> likes, and sell it.  That somebody, as a result ("caused by the act") of me
> removing that feature in my redistribution, decides to sue you for allowing
> me to do so.

You only idemnify the author "to the extent caused by." This lawsuit is 
not caused by your modification; rather it is caused entirely by the 
plantiff's misunderstanding of relevant law and by the author's decision 
on how to license his software.

In the cases where the suit isn't frivelous, its far more reasonable for 
you to pay for the defense of claims arising out of your actions the for 
the author to. Especially since you're making money off of it.

FYI, we have similar clauses in main. One big one is X, its associated 
libraries, and many of the associated programs. Below is one example (it 
seems to appear in the copyright file many, many times) and it even 
includes non-commercial use:

> 11. Indemnity. Recipient shall be solely responsible for damages arising,
> directly or indirectly, out of its utilization of rights under this License.
> Recipient will defend, indemnify and hold harmless Silicon Graphics, Inc.
> from and against any loss, liability, damages, costs or expenses (including
> the payment of reasonable attorneys fees) arising out of Recipient's use,
> modification, reproduction and distribution of the Subject Software or out of
> any representation or warranty made by Recipient.