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

Re: ISDA CDS Standard Model Public Licence v0.1

Walter Landry a écrit :

The X11 indemnification applies to

  Recipient's use, modification, reproduction and distribution

so I do not see the difference.

However, the intent is rather different, I believe (I'm not trying to
push the licence forward, just to clarify things): This model is used
to price CDS, which are, well, financial products that have burnt and
will probably still burn many financial institutions. So they have a
legitimate point in saying "if you fool around with our model, and
distribute it to a client of yours, well do not hold us accountable".

No, that is not quite what it is saying.  That would be more like a NO
WARRANTY clause.

I get your point. Fully. "do not hold us accountable" was also a poor choice of words.

Nonetheles, it seems to me that this applies only to Derivative Works,
not to the original software itself. So it could possibly be OK to
distribute within Debian only the original, while letting the
recipients free to use, modify, redistribute derived works at will.

If Debian can not distribute modified versions of the software, I
could hardly call if DFSG-free.

Sure. I suppose that "free to distribute modified versions at your own risk" is not acceptable.

More seriously, while this is not covered explicitely by the licence, it seems to me that the *intent* covers modifications of the pricing algorithm. Not packaging or compilation tweaking.

But then, it still does make perfect sense to consider "free [...] at your own risk" as not acceptable.

I'm not trying to push this licence forward, as I mentionned
earlier. Just wondering if it may be not too stupid to package it
myself, in the hope of potentially seeing it in Debian one day,
"practical" issues set aside.

It depends on your point of view.  Some of the things you call
practical I would call ideological.

I guess it also depends where you stand in the food chain. Whether you're authoring, distributing or consuming such software.

By ideological, I mean that, well, you know, the QPL is considered free...

Now that I know that it's unrealistic to package it for Debian, I'm pondering packaging it myself. The indemnification clause is a major no-go.

I also wanted to have advice on this licence because I was surprised
to see a licence on a financial software distributed by a financial
company, that did seem to be free software. Borderline, perhaps, but

There are many ways that this license could fail.  For a more definite
answer you would have to ask the ftp-masters directly.


Walter Landry

     Guillaume Yziquel

Reply to: