Re: EllisLab, Inc. CodeIgniter license
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:01, Josselin Mouette <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Le mercredi 29 octobre 2008 à 23:34 +0100, Francesco Poli a écrit :
>> > 4. Any files that have been modified must carry notices stating the nature
>> > of the change and the names of those who changed them.
>> An obligation to maintain a sort of change-log is normally acceptable.
>> The second part of the clause is more troublesome: depending on how it
>> should be interpreted, it could meet the DFSG or fail to do so.
>> If I am allowed to modify a file, document the nature of the change and
>> put a nickname (or a pseudonym, or even the term "anonymous") as the
>> name of the modifier, then I think this clause complies with the DFSG.
>> On the other hand, if I am compelled to disclose my own identity in
>> order to distribute a file modified by me, then I think that this
>> clause fails DFSG#1, since being forced to disclose one's own identity
>> can be a fee.
>> See also http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/05/msg00015.html
>> for a more detail explanation of the issue (found in another license).
> This may depend on local law, but I don't think this prevents you from
> using a pseudonym as "name". A name is different from an identity, so I
> don't think this clause causes any trouble.
>> > 6. Products derived from the Software may not be called "CodeIgniter",
>> This is considered acceptable (as a compromise!) per DFSG#4.
>> > nor may "CodeIgniter" appear in their name, without prior written
>> > permission from EllisLab, Inc.
>> IMHO, this goes beyond what is permitted (as a compromise!) by DFSG#4,
>> since it forbids an infinite set of names, rather than a single one.
>> I cannot use any of the following names for a derived product:
>> CodeIgniterNG, CodeIgniter++, SuperCodeIgniter, TinyCodeIgniter, ...
> In all cases you will not be allowed to use such names unless you obtain
> a trademark exception, so I don't think this is problematic either.
>> > INDEMNITY
>> > You agree to indemnify and hold harmless the authors of the Software and
>> > any contributors for any direct, indirect, incidental, or consequential
>> > third-party claims, actions or suits, as well as any related expenses,
>> > liabilities, damages, settlements or fees arising from your use or misuse
>> > of the Software, or a violation of any terms of this license.
>> Warning: indemnification clause: is it acceptable?
>> It smells as non-free, but I would like to know the opinion of other
>> debian-legal regulars...
> At least this is already accepted in main, see e.g. postfix.
> : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code.
> `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to
> `- our own. Resistance is futile.
I have notified Ellislab about this discussion, and asked them for
their stance in the matter. hopefully a reply is made :)
/Carl Fürstenberg <email@example.com>