Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of jthom@us.ibm.com designates
 32.97.182.139 as permitted sender)
In-Reply-To: <20131205205345.GD26699@redhat.com>
References: 
 <OF9D860F6D.4BEA6CFE-ON85257C37.00516D25-85257C37.0052B2B6@us.ibm.com>
 <01a601cef121$81169a40$8343cec0$@rosenlaw.com>
 <OF55B55D21.CC53B6D4-ON85257C37.007A7AD7-85257C37.007BAD69@us.ibm.com>
 <021601cef154$3a33e730$ae9bb590$@rosenlaw.com>
 <OF2ED96178.6C1F7182-ON85257C38.00488294-85257C38.004C75E6@us.ibm.com>
 <CA+nPnMwR5MD=mTGnTV1bqaKRtd_0D3uRbyWPLq+QmpFh=CyxFg@mail.gmail.com>
 <OF8871E5F8.932FD411-ON85257C38.00509F10-85257C38.0050E017@us.ibm.com>
 <CA+nPnMySAZe0sD1jWNFKKwmQH3x9D_LPMCekZhiEf0zMEosAxw@mail.gmail.com>
 <OF70FFFA06.197CC870-ON85257C38.00523171-85257C38.0053CF4B@us.ibm.com>
 <02e301cef1da$07dc3680$1794a380$@rosenlaw.com>
 <20131205205345.GD26699@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: New versions of CC licenses
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Message-ID: 
 <OFA729B6C9.CA1266B7-ON85257C38.00752F8F-85257C38.0075F1EF@us.ibm.com>
From: Jeffrey Thompson <jthom@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 16:28:16 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
	Boundary="0__=0ABBF6ABDFE6A91F8f9e8a93df938690918c0ABBF6ABDFE6A91F"
Content-Disposition: inline

--0__=0ABBF6ABDFE6A91F8f9e8a93df938690918c0ABBF6ABDFE6A91F
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable


Richard Fontana <rfontana@redhat.com> wrote on 12/05/2013 03:53:45 PM:

> Ultimately the problem is that the old license was not drafted well b=
y
> not accounting for the possibility that there might be some
> third-party component under a license that has to be passed through t=
o
> the customer, an extremely common occurrence in commercial
> software. Most of the stock commercial software licenses I see these
> days have some formulaic clause that refers to this possibility.

Yes, its a stock clause that I see often, as well.  Its also a stock cl=
ause
that large software procurement organizations are very familiar with an=
d
for any sufficiently large procurement deal its a stock clause that is
redlined out on the first draft.

Jeff
Counsel, IBM Software Group=

--0__=0ABBF6ABDFE6A91F8f9e8a93df938690918c0ABBF6ABDFE6A91F
Content-type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

<html><body>
<p><tt><font size=3D"2">Richard Fontana &lt;rfontana@redhat.com&gt; wro=
te on 12/05/2013 03:53:45 PM:<br>
</font></tt><br>
<tt><font size=3D"2">&gt; Ultimately the problem is that the old licens=
e was not drafted well by<br>
&gt; not accounting for the possibility that there might be some<br>
&gt; third-party component under a license that has to be passed throug=
h to<br>
&gt; the customer, an extremely common occurrence in commercial<br>
&gt; software. Most of the stock commercial software licenses I see the=
se<br>
&gt; days have some formulaic clause that refers to this possibility.<b=
r>
</font></tt><br>
<tt><font size=3D"2">Yes, its a stock clause that I see often, as well.=
 &nbsp;Its also a stock clause that large software procurement organiza=
tions are very familiar with and for any sufficiently large procurement=
 deal its a stock clause that is redlined out on the first draft.</font=
></tt><br>
<br>
<tt><font size=3D"2">Jeff</font></tt><br>
<tt><font size=3D"2">Counsel, IBM Software Group</font></tt></body></ht=
ml>=

--0__=0ABBF6ABDFE6A91F8f9e8a93df938690918c0ABBF6ABDFE6A91F--