Re: [9fans] The new ridiculous license

[David Presotto <presotto@closedmind.org>]

Thank you for the comments.  I'll answer them as best I can though
I fear any answer will be insufficient since I really can't change
the license substantially.

> That is not a license which makes it free.  It is a *contract* with
> consequences; let me be clear -- it is a contract with consequences
> that I am unwilling to accept.

That's clearly for you to decide.  Though legally this is not a contract,
It does obligate the recipient which is probably what you mean.

> Note that I sell OpenBSD CDs to fund our project.  That contract right
> there says in term 7:
>
>	If Theo accidentally sells a CD to
>	North Korea, the US can fuck him.

Nice paraphrase and it is indeed true.  However, not because of what the
license says:

	Recipient agrees that Recipient alone is responsible for compliance with
	the United States export administration regulations (and the export control
	laws and regulation of any other countries) and hereby indemnifies the
	Contributors for any liability incurred as a result of the Recipients
	actions which result in any violation of any such laws and regulations.

If Theo accidentally (or not) sells a CD to North Korea, then the US can 'fuck' him,
so to speak, with or without this clause (assuming he's living in the US or
in a country the US can lean on).  The best he can claim as mitigation
is that he didn't know that there might be applicable export controls or
that he did it by accident.  What the clause does do is point out that
he was told, that its his accident and the weight falls on him, not the
contributors.  If he does something to bring the gov down on him, its
on him and not the whole community.  That of course will not make Theo
feel very good.

As far as I know, the only thing that really is covered by the US regulations
is the crypto but that's beside the point.  If you know better than I do (as
well you might, I haven't checked lately) i.e., if you think that the
export regulations no longer apply to such software please tell me.

Of couse then this clause shouldn't bother you because there are no
reguations whose infringement you need to indemnify contributors against.

By the way, this clause has NOT been accepted by OpenSource as the pointer
at the top of the license points out.  The license they accepted
does not contain it.

>It also says in term 4:
>
>	Sell this in a product in ways which "we" do not like, and the
>	contract you have accepted says you can be fucked by anyone
>	who owns this license later and who decides they want to fuck you.

If the lawyers you talk to read it as you described it, then I'ld like to
talk with them.  Please have them contact me.  We've gone over this with
both our lawyer and with the IBM laywer that drafted the CPL and this
reading astounds us all.

This clause comes pretty much intact from the IBM PL.  It means that
should you commercially distribute (sell) this product, and as a result
of that someone sues because of 'your acts and ommissions', that you will
protect the contributors in that suit.

Of course, this may also not be acceptable to you, but that's a different
story.

As for the rest, I agree.  My original wording for the license was:

	take the software and do whatever you'ld like with it

Since we're a big company with seemingly big pockets (though mostly empty
these days) and we do get sued a lot as a result.  Whether or not we're
in the right its still damed expensive.  Therefore, we can't release
software without the cover your ass clauses.