LaMont Jones writes: > Unfortunately, failure to include such a clause really increases the > exposure of the author to successful infringement claims: you may > suddenly become responsible for the actions of everyone you gave the > software to, since you granted them license to things you didn't own.
If the infringement is innocent and the author promptly notifies the recipients I find it hard to believe that a court will hold him responsible for their subsequent actions. Can you cite some precedents? And he did not grant them a license to things he does not own. He granted them a license for his software. > If you use DFSG compliant software which is found to be infringing on a > third parties IP, you still have no license... Yes you do. You may need to acquire another license in order to exercise it, but you have a license. > This revocation of the license shall apply only to the possibly > infringing intellectual property, and not the rest of the Software. This still implies that IBM may revoke because of a mere threat of action. > If you are able to directly resolve the claim with the plaintif, you may > continue to use and distribute the Software under the terms of this > agreement, as further restricted by the claim resolution. This, on the other hand, refers to the plaintiff, implying that a suit has actually been filed (but not necessarily settled). It also doesn't really seem to do anything, since in the absence of such a clause I can still continue to use and distribute the Software if (and only if) I am able to resolve the claim directly with the owner of the infringed IP. I think I see what you are trying to do here, but you need to rephrase it. -- John Hasler This posting is in the public domain. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do with it what you will. Dancing Horse Hill Make money from it if you can; I don't mind. Elmwood, Wisconsin Do not send email advertisements to this address.
