Proposed license from AT&T

[Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.]

I agree that the ATT license is a bit legalistic and could be written in
clearer language, but there is much to be learned from there draft. It is
written so that a court will enforce it, and that is not a bad idea for open
source licenses.

The ATT license appears to be a public license for free software, but the
grant of rights is not explicitly irrevocable, which is always troubling for
free software projects. The lack of an irrevocable grant of rights is
compounded by another downside; namely, that the ATT license has no
copyleft.

___________________________________
Rod Dixon
Visiting Assistant Professor of Law
Rutgers University School of Law
Camden
www.cyberspaces.org
rod at cyberspaces.org

General Counsel
FreeBuyers Net, LLC
dixon at freebuyersnet.com



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Justin Wells [mailto:jread at semiotek.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 28, 2000 2:07 AM
> To: osi at opensource.org; license-discuss at opensource.org
> Subject: Re: Proposed license from AT&T
>
>
> ATT license:
>
> > "You represent and warrant that ... your Build Materials ... do not
> >  include any Software obtained under a license that conflicts with
> >  the obligations contained in this Agreement."
>
> What are the terms of the warranty I am extending to AT&T, how much am I
> liable for, and isn't this a bit extreme in the case where all I did was
> combine, through an error, AT&T's software with some other software which
> turns out to be under an incompatible license. What if I didn't think the
> license was incompatible? What if I included the incompatible software
> by accident--I didn't know it was there?
>
> I don't think I want to extend any warranty to AT&T. A violation like this
> should result in me losing my rights to use the software until I resolve
> the problem, and possibly voiding the copies I've distributed. It
> shouldn't result in me being liable to AT&T under some warranty.
>
> > regularly monitor the Website
>
> And if I don't? Suppose I wrote some code based on AT&T's software, and
> then I forget about and move on with my life.
>
> This looks like it gives you two choices when you tire of maintaining
> some project you worked on:
>
>   a) pull it from public use
>   b) continue monitoring the website for life
>
> That's not realistic.
>
>
> > "Capsule"
>
> I know that a previous license was approved which had Capsule language in
> it, but I don't like it. I think that open source software ought to be
> usable in bits and pieces, not just as a whole.
>
> It also places a large burden on anyone trying to use software based
> on the AT&T code. If I create and distribute a derived work, recipients
> are going to have to unpack this capsule.
>
> Other companies with equally large legal departments have managed to
> come up with licenses that do not involve capsules, so I think they are
> not really necessary.
>
>
> > "you shall ensure that the recipient enters into an agreement ..."
>
> This needs to go to a lawyer, but my understanding is that the word
> "ensure" in a legal document means something along the lines of "do
> everything that you possibly can, no matter what the expense".
>
> This might mean you more or less cannot distribute this software on a CD
> or other medium, because you wouldn't be able to "ensure" that recipients
> of the CD accept the license.
>
> This seems to put too much restriction on your ability to distribute
> the software.
>
>
> > If you prepare a Patch ... Contact AT&T
>
> Previous licenses have been shot down when they require the
> person creating
> the patch to contact someone each and every time they modify the
> software.
> It should be adequate to tell AT&T just once where to look for patches.
>
>
> > Your rights terminate ... upon posting notice of a non-frivolous claim
> > on the website...
>
> This seems too broad to me, but it might not matter to the OSD. In
> particular, what if the non-frivolous claim exists in a different
> jurisdiction than the one I am in? Should I still have to stop
> using the software, even though the claim has no effect on me?
>
> For example, what if it depends on a patent which is enforceable only in
> the United States, should people outside the US lose their rights to it?
>
> Also, what happens if later this non-frivolous claim is denied by the
> courts, or settled somhow? Do I get to start using the code again, or
> have I lost my rights to it forever?
>
> Justin
>
>