> I have just discovered that Bacula has a problematic clause in its > license. > > From > http://bacula.cvs.sourceforge.net/bacula/bacula/LICENSE?revision=1.6.2.2&view=markup > > ---- > Termination for IP or Patent Action: > In addition to the termination clause specified in the GPL, this > license shall terminate automatically and you may no longer > exercise any of the rights granted to you by this license as of > the date you commence an action, including a cross-claim or > counterclaim, against any licensor of GPL software alleging that > the software infringes an intellectual property right or a > patent. Special dispensation from or delay to the execution of > this clause may be possible by applying directly to the license > owner of this software. Such a dispensation or delay is valid > only in writing and signed by the one or more of the license > holders. > ---- > > This is an additional restriction beyond those in the GPL. Therefore this > renders the license GPL-incompatible. Which is a major problem since > other > parts of Bacula are licensed under pure GPL. :-P > > Furthermore, it may not be DFSG-free. I don't think debian-legal has > decided on this. The key point here is that this clause retaliates > against someone who sues *any* licensor of *any* GPL software, not just > the licensors of Bacula. The really disturbing part is that this isn't > restricted to patents, put refers to "an intellectual property right". > This means that my license to use Bacula is revoked if I sue claiming > that some GPL'ed work has included portions of my copyrighted code > without permission, or claiming that some GPL'ed work has used my > *trademark* > unfairly and without permission.
If I remember correctly, I pulled this clause from some existing license -- perhaps an IBM license. I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that intellectual property right does not include copyright -- if it does, then the clause does not do what I intended, because I have nothing against copyrights. > > I suspect that this will not be considered a reasonable clause by most > people on debian-legal. It effectively says "As long as you use Bacula, > you grant everyone in the world the right to use any or your copyrighted > work in any GPLed program, and you grant eveyone in the world the right > to use your trademark as a name or advertisement for any GPLed program." > This can't be what was intended. Well, I cannot imagine how in the world the clause implies the above. It is an anti-abuse clause rather than one that gives permissions to use other people's software. > > I suggest to Kern that he just drop this clause. It doesn't operate as > intended and it causes problems. Hopefully a satisfactory > patent-retaliation clause will be avaialbe in a future version of the > GPL. There is no need to respond to my remarks above other than to educate me on why the clause may say something totally unrelated to how I read it (your second point), because I have no problem dropping the clause. Kern PS: yes the comments from someone in another email on the "terrible" clause or whatever was written were probably not at the highest levels of diplomacy, but I didn't take offense, so no problem ... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]