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

Re: perforce SCM licensing issues

On Tue, 2007-09-18 at 09:12 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
> that has been posted to gmane.linux.debian.devel.legal as well.
> Sam Clegg <sam@superduper.net> writes:
> > I maintain debain packages of perforce client and server for use
> > within my company.  I was wondering if these packages would be
> > candidates for inclusion in non-free. [...]
> > AFAICT the binaries are freely distributable:
> Can you please post the exact text of the license terms to this
> thread, so we can discuss in context?

From the first download page:

"You may use software downloaded from Perforce for any purpose you want
and for as long as you like. The Perforce Server supports only two users
and five client workspaces unless used with a Perforce License. We will
be happy to issue you a free Evaluation License to remove the
user/workspace restrictions for a limited time."

From the second download page:

"Disclaimer of Warranty
Please do not download software from this page unless you have read the
paragraph below and agree to it.

Perforce Software, Inc. disclaims all warranties, either express or
implied, including but not limited to the implied warranties of
merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. This means that if
you download software from this page, you agree that Perforce Software,
Inc. has no liability for any damages that you incur when using it,
whether or not those damages are caused by a problem with the software,
and whether or not you have brought such problems to Perforce's

I beleive this is the extent of the license that applies to those who
download the linux binaries.

> > Although perforce is a long way from being free software they are
> > friendly to open source projects and provide server licenses to such
> > projects at no cost.
> What you describe seems no more than "we're happy for more people to
> agree to our non-free license terms so our software becomes more
> widely used, at zero marginal cost to ourselves". I don't see how that
> one-sided bargain can be described as "friendly". The terms of the
> bargain are still non-free, which is harmful and antisocial, not
> friendly.

Indeed, yes.  I retract the "frieldly" comment.  Perhaps I should have
said "the software may be useful to some in the open source community
and perforce are not averse them using it".

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: