For Approval: ACE License

Forrest J. Cavalier III mibsoft at
Mon Feb 28 13:38:41 UTC 2005

Ken Sedgwick wrote:

 > The plain text copy of the license is attached to this message.

I recommend withholding approval until all of the following are

1. The license includes a statement whiich I think is a restriction
    on use....
       You must, however,
       include this copyright statement along with code built using DOC

2. The embedded references to URLs are a problem.  What happens when the
    content at those URLs is replaced?  The license must stand on
    its own before it can be approved.

3. I think all the text about being y2K compliant must be removed.

4. The license includes this statement, which seems to contradict the
    possibility of commercial support, which is then claimed a sentence
    or two later.

        Moreover, DOC software is provided with no support.

    The problem is that I need to get the downstream licensees to agree
    to two contradictory things: a contract from me that says there
    is support, and a license that says there isn't.

    Adding one or two words to make it clear that there is no support
    from WU, UC Irvine, etc would be fine, but that isn't what the
    license says.

    I think OSI should continue to withhold approval of licenses that
    do not say what the licensors intended.  They should be forced to
    clean up the language.

5. The patent and trade secret and liability indemnification paragraph
    bothers me.   I don't know exactly why.  Is it legal?

    Maybe it bothers me because why should the license
    identify a subset of contributors that are indemnified?

More information about the License-discuss mailing list