Subject: Re: XXX PUBLIC LICENSE
From: Russell Nelson <nelson@crynwr.com>
Date: 18 May 1999 03:42:51 -0000

bruce@perens.com writes:
 > XXX #4 is interesting.
 > 
 > Do 4(a) and 4(b) apply _only_ to the exclusion of losses from IP claims, or to
 > the entire one-sentence paragraph? This would read more clearly if broken up
 > into at least two sentences.

I think a commercial distributor is only required to indemnify others
due to its own actions, and specifically not from IP claims.

 > Could a commercial distributor be bound to cooperate with a settlement if the
 > settlement was a blanket termination of the license for the entire program?

I think you're reading that backwards.  If you, the Indemnified
Contributor, fail to cooperate with a settlement, you are not
indemnified *by* the Commercial Contributor.

Isn't that fair?

 > It treats commercial and non-commercial contributors differently, or commercial
 > products and non-commercial products differently. I think this runs awry of
 > OSD #6.

Not in a significant manner.  The US legal system doesn't currently
assign responsibility well.  Wouldn't it be nice if you were legally
insulated from claims due to my use of Electric Fence?  It would be
great if party A could indemnify all parties B, C, D, etc against
legal actions due to activities of A.  Since you can only reasonably
expect the commercial distributors to do that, that's what the license
requires.

Isn't that fair?

-- 
-russ nelson <rn-sig@crynwr.com>  http://crynwr.com/~nelson
Crynwr supports Open Source(tm) Software| PGPok | Good parenting creates
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | an adult, not a perfect
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | +1 315 268 9201 FAX   | child.