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

Re: Dúvida sobre licenciamento CRM Public License Version 1.0



On Mon, 26 Jul 2021 22:47:07 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote:

[...]
> For future reference, here's the complete text of the license
> under discussion
[...]

My own personal comments follow.


> Welcome to the Vtiger Public License
> 
> Copyright (c) 2004 - 2017 www.vtiger.com All rights reserved. PLEASE
> READ THE FOLLOWING LICENSE AGREEMENT CAREFULLY. ANY USE OF SOFTWARE
> DOWNLOADED OR ORDERED FROM VTIGER IS PERMITTED ONLY UNDER LICENSE WITH
> VTIGER. BY DOWNLOADING THIS SOFTWARE YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS
> OF THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT.
> 
> 1. Definitions.
> 
> 1.0. "Commercial Use" means distribution or otherwise making the
> Covered Code available to a third party.

This is a weird definition of "Commercial Use": if, for instance,
I gratuitously give it away to a friend, I am making "Commercial Use"
of it...
Let's try and remember this definition in the following.

[...]
> 2. Source Code License.
[...]
> (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;

I agree with Walter's doubts on this.
This really seems to mean that, if I separate the patented code
(by progressively dropping the remainder), the patent license granted
to me eventually disappears...

[...]
> 3.2. Availability of Source Code. Any Modification which You create or
> to which You contribute must be made available in Source Code form
> under the terms of this License either on the same media as an
> Executable version or via an accepted Electronic Distribution Mechanism
> to anyone to whom you made an Executable version available; and if made
> available via Electronic Distribution Mechanism, must remain available
> for at least twelve (12) months after the date it initially became
> available, or at least six (6) months after a subsequent version of
> that particular Modification has been made available to such
> recipients. You are responsible for ensuring that the Source Code
> version remains available even if the Electronic Distribution Mechanism
> is maintained by a third party.

I agree with Walter's comments on the practical issues raised by this
clause.  Debian does not guarantee that a version is kept online for
at least 6 months after a subsequent version has been made available.

I think this is a serious flaw of the license.

[...]
> 3.4. Intellectual Property Matters (a) Third Party Claims.
[...]
> If Contributor obtains such
> knowledge after the Modification is made available as described in
> Section 3.2, Contributor shall promptly modify the LEGAL file in all
> copies Contributor makes available thereafter and shall take other
> steps (such as notifying appropriate mailing lists or newsgroups)
> reasonably calculated to inform those who received the Covered Code
> that new knowledge has been obtained.

This creates legal obligations to perform actions even after you
have stopped distributing the Covered Code.

I think this clause does not meet the DFSG, possibly because these
obligations can be seen as a sort of fee for the right to distribute
(DFSG#1).

[...]
> 11. MISCELLANEOUS.
[...]
> This License shall be governed by
> Indian laws (except to the extent applicable law, if any, provides
> otherwise), excluding its conflict-of-law provisions.

This is a choice-of-law clause, which may be acceptable.

> With respect to
> disputes in which at least one party is a citizen of, or an entity
> chartered or registered to do business in India, any litigation
> relating to this License shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the
> Courts in Chennai, with venue lying in Tamil Nadu State, India, with
> the losing party responsible for costs, including without limitation,
> court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses.
[...]

This is a choice-of-venue clause, a category of clauses which has been
discussed to death on debian-legal in the past.
My own personal opinion is that choice-of-venue clauses do not meet
the DFSG, since they may impose arbitrary costs to licensees (living
far away from the venue, India in the present case) being sued by the
licensor.



-- 
 http://www.inventati.org/frx/
 There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82  3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE

Attachment: pgpFsX6_J__ve.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: