Guillaume Yziquel <[email protected]> wrote: > Walter Landry a écrit : >> Ben Finney <[email protected]> wrote: >>> 6. Indemnity for Use of ISDA CDS Standard Model in Derivative Works. >>> >>> You hereby agree to indemnify Licensor for any liability incurred by >>> the >>> Licensor as a result of the distribution, purchase, sale or use of >>> Your >>> Derivative Work. >> The view of the ftpmasters on indemnification are still a mystery to >> me. My copy of >> /usr/share/doc/xserver-xorg-video-v4l/copyright >> has >> 11. Indemnity. Recipient shall be solely responsible for damages >> arising, directly or indirectly, out of its utilization of rights >> under this License. Recipient will defend, indemnify and hold >> harmless Silicon Graphics, Inc. from and against any loss, >> liability, damages, costs or expenses (including the payment of >> reasonable attorneys fees) arising out of Recipient's use, >> modification, reproduction and distribution of the Subject Software >> or out of any representation or warranty made by Recipient. >> so either xserver-xorg-video-v4l has to be removed or the ftpmasters >> think it is ok. > > First of all, I wish to state that I do not speak nor work for > Markit. That being said, it seems to me that this is a different > matter. > > The X11 indemnification is "the user agrees". The ISDA CDS is "the > (re)distributor agrees" which is a fundamentally different issue.
The X11 indemnification applies to Recipient's use, modification, reproduction and distribution so I do not see the difference. > However, the intent is rather different, I believe (I'm not trying to > push the licence forward, just to clarify things): This model is used > to price CDS, which are, well, financial products that have burnt and > will probably still burn many financial institutions. So they have a > legitimate point in saying "if you fool around with our model, and > distribute it to a client of yours, well do not hold us accountable". No, that is not quite what it is saying. That would be more like a NO WARRANTY clause. > Nonetheles, it seems to me that this applies only to Derivative Works, > not to the original software itself. So it could possibly be OK to > distribute within Debian only the original, while letting the > recipients free to use, modify, redistribute derived works at will. If Debian can not distribute modified versions of the software, I could hardly call if DFSG-free. > I'm not trying to push this licence forward, as I mentionned > earlier. Just wondering if it may be not too stupid to package it > myself, in the hope of potentially seeing it in Debian one day, > "practical" issues set aside. It depends on your point of view. Some of the things you call practical I would call ideological. > I also wanted to have advice on this licence because I was surprised > to see a licence on a financial software distributed by a financial > company, that did seem to be free software. Borderline, perhaps, but > nonetheless. There are many ways that this license could fail. For a more definite answer you would have to ask the ftp-masters directly. Cheers, Walter Landry [email protected] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
