2009/8/25 David-Sarah Hopwood <[email protected]>: > > 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.
Do you have personal experience with any of the alternatives? > -- > David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥ http://davidsarah.livejournal.com > >
