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

Re: is the "lucent public license" DFSG-free?

On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 04:52:46PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Short summary, two potential freeness issues:
>       * the contributor indemnification clause,
>       * the patent retaliation clause.

Thanks Josselin and Ben for the replies so far.

> This clause is really borderline. It could be seen as an additional
> cost, but it clearly protects only against consequences of the
> distributor's own actions, something for which a contributor shouldn't
> be liable anyway.

Ok, so if the latter part of your reasoning is right I don't have to
worry to much about this, do I?

> Patent retaliation clause, applicable to patents unrelated to the
> software. IIRC this was already declared non-free.

Comments from other on this? /me hoping your memory is faulty :)


Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science ............... now what?
zack@{cs.unibo.it,debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/
(15:56:48)  Zack: e la demo dema ?    /\    All one has to do is hit the
(15:57:15)  Bac: no, la demo scema    \/    right keys at the right time

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: