From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <5515de5e34ac8d17ec86ede4501b3963@plan9.bell-labs.com>
From: presotto@plan9.bell-labs.com
To: brownlee@acm.org, 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] The new ridiculous license
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:45:46 -0400
Topicbox-Message-UUID: cd7dd704-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

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?