Eugene Eric Kim wrote:
>
> On Tue, 16 May 2000, Paul Fernhout wrote:
>
> > Based on previous discussions with my IP lawyer, indemnification as
> > broadly construed is in effect a warranty to ensure the customer for the
> > Intellectual Property can use the IP and will not have any additional
> > legal costs associated with that use. What you say is correct, BUT you
> > are ignoring who *is* then liable in this case (the contributor!) as
> > well as the implications of that liability given however Stanford/BI
> > have chosen to use the contribution (i.e. Stanford/BI's loss in not
> > being able to use the code, and the cost of redressing that loss).
>
> You're right, the contributor would be liable. I don't disagree with the
> examples you present in this e-mail; I wanted to correct your licensing
> loophole examples in your original e-mail. However, let me also point out
> that not having an indemnification clause in the license does not protect
> you, the contributor, from being liable either.
Good point. However if contributions are made under a license like the
X/MIT License, author liability is disclaimed. For example:
http://software-carpentry.codesourcery.com/mit-license.html
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND
NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE
LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION
OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION
WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
This is the complete opposite of a blanket indemnification as in
"permission to use".
Simply creating or submitting infringing code probably in most cases
does not create as much liability as using it, redistributing it, or
sublicensing it, since the party whose IP is infringed may have to prove
damages, and greater damage would be shown by commercial activity
involving infringing code rather than just having emailed it once to
someone else.
If Stanford or BI were to take contributions made under such a license
like X/MIT and then sublicense those contributions to third parties or
alternatively embed them in the next generation of internet routers or
set-top boxes or such, the liability would not be on the contributor but
instead would be on Stanford or BI. And as far as I am concerned, that
is where liability should be because Stanford or BI would probably be
doing such licensing for a fee. "Contributory Infringement" includes
making it easier for someone else to infringe. I think the author might
under some cases be liable for contributory damages, especially if the
act was willful, but I am not sure of the extent of these damages,
except to guess they would be much smaller if applicable at all in most
cases (but I am not sure of this).
Obviously it is in Stanford / BI's interest to get a statement of
originality "to the best of the author's knowledge" if they serve a role
of repackager -- that is due dilligence and ensures against intentional
infringement. An example is:
http://www.python.org/patches/bugrelease.html
I would have no major issues with making such statements if I were
submitting such code.
The line of reasonableness is crossed (in my opinion) when Stanford / BI
wants contributors to shoulder a financial risk for no significant gain
to the author, as part of a process that may provide a potentially
significant financial gain to Stanford / BI. And as a practical basis,
with the way the US PTO is handing out software patents, is is
practically impossible for a contributor to know what existing or
soon-to-be-issued patents (valid or not) they may have innocently
infringed, especially in a field changing as rapidly as knowledge
management.
For what it's worth, that is why my wife and I have turned down having
our software included on a CD in a book by a major publisher who
requested we blanket indemnify the publisher (no control over legal
defense, etc.). They didn't offer us any money -- just a copy of the
book (which was about a related topic and by someone else) and of course
the potential advertising value of being on the CD. While we believe
our work does not infringe any third party's IP, still it was too great
a risk for a small company -- since if someone did claim the software
infringed something, we might be liable for every copy of the CD
distributed by the publisher, and they provide a big target. (Our
standard product licenses disclaim liability in various ways.) Note that
if we had armies of IP lawyers on staff, we might well have said yes. We
have allowed our software to be on CDs in other books and magazines
where publishers have not asked us to sign such agreements.
(I am not a lawyer, so contact your own lawyer before making decisions
regarding legal matters.)
-Paul Fernhout
Kurtz-Fernhout Software
=========================================================
Developers of custom software and educational simulations
Creators of the Garden with Insight(TM) garden simulator
http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Join Garden.com's affiliate program and enjoy numerous benefits.
To learn more click here:
http://click.egroups.com/1/2955/4/_/444287/_/958536190/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Community email addresses:
Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com
Subscribe: unrev-II-subscribe@onelist.com
Unsubscribe: unrev-II-unsubscribe@onelist.com
List owner: unrev-II-owner@onelist.com
Shortcut URL to this page:
http://www.onelist.com/community/unrev-II
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 16 2000 - 21:11:12 PDT