www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeffrey Thompson <jt...@us.ibm.com>
Subject Re: interpretation of ALv2, section 9
Date Mon, 25 Apr 2005 21:01:46 GMT
     I'm not sure how to tilt myself like that.  The language refers to 
liability or claims created "by reason of your accepting any such warranty 
or additional liability."  It seems to me that only your customers that 
have the benefit of your warranty could make any claim "by reason of" it. 
If an unrelated third party made an indemnification claim, the Contributor 
would point to the standard AS IS language, wouldn't they?

     I don't see the other interpretation, but maybe that's my lack of 

Staff Counsel, IBM Corporation  (914)766-1757  (tie)8-826  (fax) -8160

"Geir Magnusson Jr." <geirm@apache.org> 
04/25/2005 01:12 PM


interpretation of ALv2, section 9

Section 9 of the ALv2 says :

9. Accepting Warranty or Additional Liability. While redistributing
       the Work or Derivative Works thereof, You may choose to offer,
       and charge a fee for, acceptance of support, warranty, indemnity,
       or other liability obligations and/or rights consistent with this
       License. However, in accepting such obligations, You may act only
       on Your own behalf and on Your sole responsibility, not on behalf
       of any other Contributor, and only if You agree to indemnify,
       defend, and hold each Contributor harmless for any liability
       incurred by, or claims asserted against, such Contributor by 
       of your accepting any such warranty or additional liability.

I just had someone claim to me that their lawyer interpreted this as 
meaning that if they offered indemnification to their customers, they 
would be responsible for defending all Contributors for any liability 
or claims by anyone, not just their customers, and thus were about to 
embark on wholesale replacement of Apache java code (until the issue 
rendered moot for other reasons...)

I thought it strange - that to me (a non-laywer), this states that you 
won't either pass through claims to contributors and/or will defend 
contributors in case the party receiving the warranty from you decides 
to use your warranty as a basis for going after the Contributors.

However, if I do mentally "tilt" my language interpreter a little, I 
can see how they might be confused...

Just wanted to report this here for comment.


Geir Magnusson Jr                                  +1-203-665-6437

DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

View raw message