[License-discuss] Greetings, Earthlings! Need quotes for article

[Chris Travers]

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 1:28 PM, John Cowan <cowan at mercury.ccil.org> wrote:
> Karl Fogel scripsit:
>
>>   Adaptive Public License http://www.opensource.org/licenses/APL-1.0
>
> This license was pretty much beyond my comprehension when it was first
> brought up, and it still is.

"A Recipient ("COMMERCIAL RECIPIENT") may choose to offer, and to
charge a fee for, warranty, support, indemnity or liability
obligations (collectively, "SERVICES") to one or more other Recipients
or Distributors. However, such Commercial Recipient may do so only on
that Commercial Recipient's own behalf, and not on behalf of any other
Distributor or Recipient, and Commercial Recipient must make it clear
than any such warranty, support, indemnity or liability obligation(s)
is/are offered by Commercial Recipient alone."

Am I reading this right?  Wouldn't this at least be arguably outside
portions of the OSD (1, 2, 5, and 6) at least as regards natural
persons who receive the software from their corporate employers for
the purpose of providing warranty support or other covered services to
customers?

>
>>   Frameworx License http://www.opensource.org/licenses/Frameworx-1.0
>
> The issue here seems to be clauses 1d and 3b:
>
>    1. (d) Value-Added Services means any commercial or fee-based
>    software-related service, including without limitation: system or
>    application development or consulting; technical or end-user support
>    or training; distribution maintenance, configuration or versioning;
>    or outsourced, hosted or network-based application services.
>
>    3. (b) Any Value-Added Services that you offer or provide,
>    directly or indirectly, in relation to any Downstream Distribution
>    shall be offered and provided on commercial terms that are
>    reasonably commensurate to the fair market value of such Value-Added
>    Services. In addition, the terms and conditions on which any such
>    Value Added Services are so offered or provided shall be consistent
>    with, and shall fully support, the intent and purpose of this
>    License Agreement.
>
The "intent and purpose" language here is pretty troubling.  Could
someone at least argue that providing support for people porting their
applications *from* the covered software would violate the intent and
purpose of the license agreement (which is obviously to bring the
framework to more people)?

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers