Python legalities

[Helen Dawson]

It was Bruce, but I'm sharing an e-mail address for usenet browsing.

There is certainly no guarantee that commercial libraries are patent
or copyright safe. However, our lawyers tell me that when you
license commercial libraries they usually come with a contract that
says that they promise that there aren't any patent or copyright
problems, and they indemnify you against those problems.

It's not giving somebody money that is particularly magic, it's what's
in the licensing agreement. Then again, I don't know how common
this indemnification clause really is, and how effective it really is.
I'm not qualified to debate that.

I agree that many of the 'dangers' of free libraries exist in commercial
libraries, and in in-house libraries (patent problems in particular).

Peter Hansen wrote:

> Helen (or maybe it was really Bruce) Dawson wrote:
> >
> > If we license software from a third party, then part of what we
> > are paying them for is for them to promise that there aren't any
> > copyright or patent issues, and for them to take the legal heat if
> > there are any issues.
> >
> > With free software in general, and Python in particular, there is
> > nobody to indemnify us.
> >
> > Bruce Dawson
> > comments at cygnus-software.com
>
> Somehow I doubt the distinction between "free" and commercial software
> is really that clear.  Is it definitely, legally, contractually the case
> that you are completely safe licensing software for money from a third
> party?  Isn't it possible they have inadvertently included copyrighted
> material from other sources without realizing it (or deliberately), and
> the copyright owner could come after you?
>
> I'm not saying you are definitely wrong, but perhaps the legal eagles
> are reading too much benefit into the difference between licensing with
> money exchanged and licensing without money exchanged.
>
> IANAL, but some of my best friends know people who are.