Oh wow! Okay. That definitely covers #1. That leads to a tangential, more general followup. The dev agreement provides a duty to defend:
https://web.archive.org/web/20200530120950/https://query.prod.cms.rt.microsoft.com/cms/api/am/binary/RE4o4bH > Duty to defend. You will defend, indemnify and hold harmless each > Covered Party, as applicable, from and against (including by paying > any associated costs, losses, damages or expenses and attorneys' > fees) any and all third party claims All of the trusted FOSS licenses I'm aware of include language removing liability from the author. For example, here's a snippet from ISC: https://opensource.org/licenses/ISC > IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY ... > DAMAGES... IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT... > ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH... THIS SOFTWARE To me, that seems like a direct contradiction. Is there any precedence for precedence should a conflict arise? The safe route is clearly to avoid any agreements with indemnification, but I am curious if it's swung one way or the other in court. Also, because I wrapped links in parens without spaces in my original post, some of the longer ones seem to be visually truncated and append the tailing paren on click. I'm very sorry about that. If you click a link and archive says it DNE, remove the tailing paren from the URL. _______________________________________________ legal mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]
