-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sunday 14 Oct 2001 6:52 pm, you wrote: > >>>>> "Stephen" == Stephen Stafford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>>> writes: > > Stephen> I am sorry, but licenses which start to talk about > Stephen> indemnifying immediately start warning bells in my head. > Stephen> If companies are going to release under a free license > Stephen> (and get the fanfare of good publicity that goes with > Stephen> that) then the license they release under should damn > Stephen> well BE free. > > This is the crux of the issue. People (read Debian developers) still > expect packages in non-free to have free licences. They don't. > That's why they're in non-free. > > Indemnification is a standard corporate practice and necessary for > the officers of such corporations to complete their fiduciary duty to > the owners of said corporations. Expecting *any* software produced > by a corporation not to include indemnification is simply naive.
Granted. I *still* want clarification from Sun that the clause does not mean that if one of our users sues Sun then we are liable to pay Sun's costs. I preferably want that stated in the license somewhere. If it *does* mean that then I do not believe that we can distribute it. - -- Stephen Stafford finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] to get gpg public key -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE7ydMMFwmY7Xa4pD0RAta+AJ4hy9BQgj+xWYKljoP+unbhVfwxBwCfT5C9 dTvItmpd7EFl4vBF5r+587o= =MEl1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
