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

Re: DFSG-freeness of the "CID Font Code Public Licence"

The CID Font Code Public License is non-free, per the discussion linked to by 
bug 211765.

At the time, Branden couldn't find anything actually under the license.

> One can find this utility shipped in Sarge's version of the 'xutils'
> package, and the full license included in its debian/copyright file,
> which makes me think the license has been ruled to be DFSG-free in the
> past.

WRONG!  Never assume that.  It just means the license wasn't properly 

I hate to say it, but I suspect there is a lot of non-free stuff in 'main', 
simply because most maintainers do not check their licenses carefully.  Even 
the best maintainers.

Sections 6 and 7 are the problematic ones, FYI.

I believe we don't have consensus on whether section 6 is non-free.  The 
problems are classic, however:

> 6. Compliance with Laws; Non-Infringement. Recipient shall comply with all
> applicable laws and regulations in connection with use and distribution of
> the Subject Software, including but not limited to, all export and import
> control laws and regulations of the U.S. government and other countries.
May apply export control laws to people in other countries to whom they do not 

> Recipient may not distribute Subject Software that (i) in any way infringes
> (directly or contributorily) the rights (including patent, copyright, trade
> secret, trademark or other intellectual property rights of any kind) of any
> other person or entity,
Requires compliance with other random laws in order to be in compliance with 
the license.

> or (ii) breaches any representation or warranty, 
> express, implied or statutory, which under any applicable law it might be
> deemed to have been distributed.
Requires compliance with other random laws in order to be in compliance with 
license.  Also way overbroad.  The license being revoked because the 
distributor "breached" an implied warranty under which the software "might be 
deemed to have been distributed".  This seems to eliminate the "no, it was 
NOT distributed with that warranty" defense, because if anyone "might have 
deemed" it to be, you're screwed.

Section 7 is clearly unacceptable:
> 7. Claims of Infringement. If Recipient at any time has knowledge of any
> one or more third party claims that reproduction, modification, use,
> distribu- tion, import or sale of Subject Software (including particular
> functionality or code incorporated in Subject Software) infringes the third
> party's intel- lectual property rights, Recipient must place in a
> well-identified web page bearing the title "LEGAL" a description of each
> such claim and a description of the party making each such claim in
> sufficient detail that a user of the Subject Software will know whom to
> contact regarding the claim. Also, upon gaining such knowledge of any such
> claim, Recipient must conspicuously include the URL for such web page in
> the Required Notice, and in the text of any related documentation, license
> agreement or collateral in which Recipient describes end user's rights
> relating to the Subject Software. If Recipient obtains such knowledge after
> it makes Subject Software available to any other person or entity,
> Recipient shall take other steps (such as notifying appro- priate mailing
> lists or newsgroups) reasonably calculated to provide such knowledge to
> those who received the Subject Software.
Notification requirement.  Requires creation of a web page.  What the hell?  
Publication of a web page imposes a long-term monetary cost on the person who 
has to do it, so this is also a fee.

Reply to: