Le samedi 25 février 2012 18:17:15, Philipp Kern a écrit : > I really dislike the language of 2.3b, though: > > http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/non-free/b/broadcom-sta/current/ > copyright > > | 2.3. Restriction on Distribution. Licensee shall only distribute the > | Software (a) under the terms of this Agreement and a copy of this > | Agreement accompanies such distribution, and (b) agrees to defend and > | indemnify Broadcom and its licensors from and against any damages, > | costs, liabilities, settlement amounts and/or expenses (including > | attorneys' fees) incurred in connection with any claim, lawsuit or > | action by any third party that arises or results from the use or > | distribution of any and all Software by the Licensee except as > | contemplated herein. > > Was that always present? Somehow I'd be glad if the ftp-masters take > another look at this and/or if Broadcom could clarify the wording.
Yes, I checked the first version (5.10.79.10-1, 04/2009) that entered into Debian and this clause was already here, see : http://snapshot.debian.org/archive/debian/20090517T161239Z/pool/non- free/b/broadcom-sta/ > I don't like to act as a buffer here, holding up the package development in > arbitrary ways, but if somebody tells me that this is surely acceptable for > the archive, I can enable autobuilding. (It didn't scare only me, but a > quick strawpoll in #d-devel said the same.) I understand, on the other hand, I'm not a lawyer and I think my english is not good enough to discuss about license terms with Broadcom's lawyers, how do you generally proceed when such a problem occurs ? Thanks, Cyril Lacoux. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
