I raised this in the past as we use Zimbra internally. The main objection at that time was "choice of venue", which has been discussed at length.
I continue to hold the view that establishing the legal venue gives clarity to the contractual structure of the agreement in a positive way. Its better to have the contract explicitly define which legal "operating system" it is designed to execute in. Otherwise, the language of the contract may be interpreted in a way radically different than the intent with which it was framed. My opinion is currently not the popular one. It just makes rational sense in my mind. ----- "Cedric Fachinetti" wrote: > I quoted Allard Hoeve March 2008: > We'd like to try to package Zimbra for Debian. > Zimbra is at http://www.zimbra.com/. It is distributed according to the Yahoo > Public License, which you can read at > http://www.zimbra.com/license/yahoo_public_license_1.1.html Is the Yahoo > Public License DFSG-compatible? > I haven't found anything that made me believe otherwise but the license does > state for example: "Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, > __Yahoo!__ hereby grants to You, under any and all of its copyright interest > in and to the Software, a royalty-free, non-exclusive, non-transferable > license to copy, modify, compile, execute, and distribute the Software and > Modifications." > What does the debian-legal community think? -- Ean Schuessler, CTO Brainfood.com e...@brainfood.com - http://www.brainfood.com - 214-720-0700 x 315
