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

Re: Dúvida sobre licenciamento CRM Public License Version 1.0

Guilherme Xavier writes:
> License Website:
> https://www.vtiger.com/open-source-crm/vtiger-public-license/

It kind of reminds me of the IBM Common Public License.  I am not so
worried about your specific concerns.  Yes, people can write non-free
things that include this code.  The patent lawsuit stuff is just a way
for people to formalize different ways of ending a patent lawsuit.  It
does not preclude the usual way, which is to win or lose the lawsuit.

In any event, Here are some other parts that jumped out to me.

In Part 2.1

  (d) Notwithstanding Section 2.1(b) above, no patent license is
  granted: 1) for code that You delete from the Original Code; 2)
  separate from the Original Code;

What does 'separate from the Original Code' mean?  Does that mean that
if I gradually delete everything else but the patented code (a la Ship
of Theseus), can I suddenly no longer use the code?  This may not
matter, since Debian, as a rule, does not worry about patent licenses
unless there are real patents being actively enforced.

In Section 3.1, it says that you can distribute modifications via an
'Electronic Distribution Mechanism', but you have to keep it up for at
least 6 months.  Debian does not guarantee that.  Mirrors, for example,
may only have the latest version.

Section 3.4 has some weirdness about updating legal notices and telling
everyone about it (including sending mail to mailing lists).  It feels
weird, but I do not have a concrete objection yet.

Section 8 has a bunch of stuff about terminating in case of patent
lawsuits.  I do not remember what the current policy is regarding those
types of terms.

Section 10 tries to define the code as 'commercial computer software',
regardless of reality.  This is probably ignorable.

Section 11 specifies Indian law (probably OK) and 'jurisdiction of the
Courts in Chennai, with venue lying in Tamil Nadu State, India'.  That
does not seem so OK.  What if neither of the litigants are in India?

So I think the one thing that is really a deal-breaker for Debian is
Section 3.1.  Section 11 also gives me pause.  The rest I am uncertain.


Reply to: