Mike Samuel wrote: > 2009/8/25 David-Sarah Hopwood <[email protected]>: [...] >> # [...] Therefore, if a Contributor includes the Program in a commercial >> # product offering, such Contributor ("Commercial Contributor") hereby >> # agrees to defend and indemnify every other Contributor ("Indemnified >> # Contributor") against any losses, damages and costs (collectively >> # "Losses") arising from claims, lawsuits and other legal actions brought >> # by a third party against the Indemnified Contributor to the extent caused >> # by the acts or omissions of such Commercial Contributor in connection with >> # its distribution of the Program in a commercial product offering. >> >> Blech. This discriminates against commercial redistributors, and >> therefore to my mind violates clause 6 of the Open Source Definition >> ("No Discrimination Against Fields of Endevour"), and possibly also >> clause 5 ("No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups"). OSI slipped >> up badly in approving this license. >> >> <http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php> >> >> It may not be obvious to "Commercial Contributors" that they are taking on >> this liability by redistributing Caja, so at the very least this license >> gotcha should be documented in the top-level Caja license, so that anyone >> who wants to can strip out Emma (it is just a code coverage tool, right?) > > Hmm. This is something that's loaded at runtime by ant when we build > coverage. > No Caja code references anything in the Emma namespace.
OK, but if it is bundled with the Caja distribution, then it still introduces the above liability hazard for any commercial redistributor. -- David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥ http://davidsarah.livejournal.com
