From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <3EEF8EA8.8060904@acm.org> From: Donald Brownlee User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: presotto@plan9.bell-labs.com Cc: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] The new ridiculous license References: <42999790ecb672f64d9fe046cb284a9d@plan9.bell-labs.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:56:56 -0700 Topicbox-Message-UUID: ce31d2ae-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 presotto@plan9.bell-labs.com wrote: > On Tue Jun 17 14:15:16 EDT 2003, brownlee@acm.org wrote: > >>To avoid having to indemnify contributors, couldn't >>a distributor offer a license which disclaims as >>much as possible AND requires a distributee >>to accept the Lucent license? > > > The distributor indemnifies against the consequences of his actions. > The distributor is not indemnifying the contributors against the results > of their actions (unless of course he misrepresents their claims when > distributing). > > >>To distribute and have to indemnify the contributors could be risky. > > > If a contributor could be sued for something stupid that a distributor > did, wouldln't it be risky to contribute? > Yes. A distributor might also be a contributor and have the distributee accept the Lucent license. It seems that that would push all the risk, if any, onto the end-user.