[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Is the PSF that much different from any other open source license? Only in not having a copyleft and therefore being potentially usable by companies wishing to develop closed software. Generally such companies wouldn't even consider using GPL'd software so they don't care whether or not it has patent issues. > Can anyone identify everyone who ever contributed to the Linux source > code? Does ANY free "tool" indemnify people? Probably not, and probably not. > In fact, does Microsoft indemnify Visual Studio users against > the risk that one day the BASIC language will be found to have been > infringing a patent all along? I'm afraid they do. From http://download.microsoft.com/download/1/5/a/15a6c1c7-cf7c-455f-9927-986e 46cab2ae/Yankee_Indemnification_Report.pdf (dated 2004): > Microsoft > Microsoft provides the broadest, most specific indemnification > available in the industry. If a corporate customer licenses Microsoft > software through the Volume License channel, Microsoft will compensate > that customer for any legal costs should any company assert any type > of IP infringement claim related to the software covered by the > license agreement. All Microsoft Volume Licensing customers > automatically receive this protection. > As of November 10, Microsoft expanded its indemnification to include > consumers and corporate customers. Microsofts IP indemnification for > Volume Licensing is comprehensive and does not include a cap. It > addresses customer requests that Microsoft completely cover damages > and settlements on IP claims that are within its control. > There are some reasonable limitations for claims that are not solely > within Microsofts control. For example, Microsoft will not indemnify > for damages arising from non- Microsoft components. I'm sure the actual terms and conditions are spelled out somewhere, that's just the first document I found with a reasonable description of what they offer. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
