Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458974 --- Comment #10 from Tom "spot" Callaway <tcall...@redhat.com> 2009-07-28 09:59:20 EDT --- Even without the preamble, the OCTPL is non-free for the reasons listed in the thread link in Comment #9: Section 7 says: You may choose to offer, *on a non-exclusive basis*, and to charge a fee for any warranty, support, maintenance, liability obligations or other rights consistent with the scope of this License with respect to the Software to the recipients of the Software .... Except for the part delimited in asterisks, this would be free though annoying. But limiting this permission to "a non-exclusive basis" is bizarre. Why can't someone choose to offer support exclusively to customer A but not any other customer? A fair number of FOSS licenses have these upstream indemnification clauses, but we don't think we've ever seen one limited to "non-exclusive" offerings of support and so forth. Moreover, if you read sections 6 and 7 together, you get the sense that they're taking "may choose to offer" in a very literal sense, implying that 'you only have the following very limited permission to offer services surrounding the software' -- contrast that with, say, GPLv2 which says "you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee" -- this is intended to clarify what ought to be obvious. In other words, in OpenCASCADE any sort of services offering relating to the software is, in their view, a forbidden 'additional term' unless it's covered under section 7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review