| |||||||||||||
The Common Development and Distribution LicenseThe Common Development and Distribution LicensePosted Dec 9, 2004 9:36 UTC (Thu) by mfrancis (subscriber, #14996)Parent article: The Common Development and Distribution License
> > 6.4. In the event of termination under Sections 6.1 or 6.2 above, all end user licenses [...] shall survive termination.
Surely this means the opposite of
> So if you are a software distributor, and you got the code from somebody who later turns around and sues Sun, you can lose your rights to the software under the license.
And in fact Sun are guaranteeing that this will not happen ?
(Log in to post comments)
The Common Development and Distribution License Posted Dec 9, 2004 10:02 UTC (Thu) by james (subscriber, #1325) [Link] ...end user licenses (excluding distributors and resellers)... So if you're an end-user, you're fine. But it explicitly excludes distributors and resellers, with the implication that their licenses will be revoked. Section 6.1 is "if you fail to comply with the terms" and 6.2 is "don't sue us for patents". So if, hypothetically, Sun's good friend Microsoft were to make a CDDL-licensed Solaris Media Player, based on XML code that Sun had licensed, there would be nothing to stop Red Hat or SUSE including it in their distributions. But then if Sun and Microsoft fell out again (as seems plausible) and Microsoft sued Sun for patent infringement over XML... Sun would be the Initial Developer, Microsoft would be the party whose license rights were revoked. Red Hat's and SUSE's end-users would be protected by the above clause, but Red Hat and SUSE, as distributors and resellers, might not be. James.
Chain license termination Posted Dec 10, 2004 1:32 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] it explicitly excludes distributors and resellers, with the implication that their licenses will be revoked.But such implications have no legal impact, so I wonder if there's something else in the license that says all downstream licenses are conditional on the behavior of the distributor.
The Common Development and Distribution License Posted Dec 10, 2004 18:38 UTC (Fri) by garloff (subscriber, #319) [Link] Indeed, it does mean the opposite.And if you look at the reasoning why the Munich court held the GPL valid, you'll understand why this clause was put there.
|
|||||||||||||