Roland Stigge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 2004-04-24 at 01:10, Walter Landry wrote: > > > I don't think that the indemnification clause is a problem at all > > > (otherwise I would have written it in my original report). In the case > > > described by the clause 5, we could refer Apple (or whoever) to the > > > clauses 3 and 4 (about disclaimer of warranty and limited liability). > > > > If Apple put in code they don't own and Debian distributed it, then > > clause 5 means that when the people sue Apple for that distribution, > > Debian has to pay for Apple's defense. Normally, Debian would only > > pay for Debian's defense. > > Right, thanks. Then, the problem can be reduced to identifying the parts > in question and removing, replacing or DFSG-free licensing them. If > that's not feasible, Squeak seems to be clearly non-free.
The lawsuit may be completely bogus. The distributors are still obligated to defend Apple. I would say that being required to defend a company that may be on the other side of the world against frivolous lawsuits goes a little too far. A business or person can evaluate the local laws and decide whether they want to assume the liability associated with distributing free software. I think it is too much to ask for them to worry about laws in other jurisdictions. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
