Novell license

[Henning Makholm]

bruce at perens.com (Bruce Perens) writes:

> Please discuss using license-discuss at opensource.org . Note the arbitration
> and legal expense clause.
> 
> 	Bruce
> Novell Cooperative License 1.0 (NCL)

I think it looks mostly OK.

I don't think the arbitration and legal expense clause should
disqualify it, because it explicitly only applies if I do not
comply with the license (in which case I have not reason to
admit ever having accepted to be bound by the license at all).

However, there is:

>    6. Your distribution of Distributions must be in compliance with 
>    relevant law and government regulations.

This is IMO much better than the usual stuff about specifically U.S. law.
It speaks about "relevant" law which would probably mean the law of
the jurisdiction where I distribute the software.

However, it is still not quite good: it discriminates against citizens
of countries with totalitarian governments that forbid distribution of
the software. The license cannot prevent them from being harassed by
the local authorities, but there is no reason why it should allow the
authors to sue them once they've escaped to the free world.

One could argue, though, that by escaping to the free world, the
breach of the license terms have effectively been cured, such that
the arbitration clause cannot in fact be invoked. However, that
interpretation would render the cited clause effectively void, so
I'd say it ought to be removed just the same.

-- 
Henning Makholm                               "... turning pussies into pies
                                                      Wouldn't do in my shop
                            just the thought of it's enough to make you sick
                           and I'm telling you them pussy cats is quick ..."