Subject: RE: For Approval: MindTree Public License
From: "Wilson, Andrew" <andrew.wilson@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 14:52:32 -0700

 Thu, 6 Oct 2005 14:52:32 -0700
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:

> In the open source licensing community, MPL is widely used to mean
> "Mozilla Public License."  I suggest that you use a different
> abbreviation for your license.

+1

>> If You have knowledge that a license to a third party's intellectual 
>> property right is required to exercise the rights 
>> granted by this MPL to Your Modifications, including the right to use

>> an API, You must declare so and describe the claim and provide 
>> adequate information about such party in the said file.
>
> This clause is the most troublesome from an approval perspective.
> APSL 1.0 had a similar clause, and it was generally considered to be a
> bad idea.

Well, to be fair, MPL (as in Mozilla) does require you to complete a
"Legal"
file if a Contributor is aware that patents (the Contributor's or
other's)
read on covered code.  So, something not too dissimilar has been
approved
by OSI in the past.

However (from the MindTree draft) ....

> You shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless MindTree or any 
> other user from and against all demands, liabilities, causes of
action, 
> judgments, costs, claims, damages, suits, losses and expenses 
> (including attorneys' fees), of any nature, kind or description of any

> person or entity whomsoever as a result of and arising our of any 
> breach of representation and warranty provided herein.

Uncapped IP indemnification?  In an open source license?
You must be either out of your mind, or out of your tree
(sorry, couldn't resist).

Andy Wilson
Intel Open Source Technology Center