... | @@ -71,12 +71,24 @@ better. |
... | @@ -71,12 +71,24 @@ better. |
|
|
|
|
|
A: Yes, the CERN OHL is a contract. Bare licences don't exist in civil
|
|
A: Yes, the CERN OHL is a contract. Bare licences don't exist in civil
|
|
law countries. Both Licensors and Licensees have obligations under the
|
|
law countries. Both Licensors and Licensees have obligations under the
|
|
CERN OHL which count as
|
|
CERN OHL which count as consideration.
|
|
consideration.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Q: How has the right to enforce this licence?
|
|
#### Q: How has the right to enforce this licence?
|
|
|
|
|
|
A:
|
|
A: In open source software licences, it is the rights holders (typically
|
|
|
|
copyright holders) who are able to enforce the licence against
|
|
|
|
infringers. People who receive the code, unless they are also
|
|
|
|
contributors, cannot (for example, if you receive GPL code and want
|
|
|
|
access to the source code, you have to find a rights holder in the code,
|
|
|
|
and get them to complain about the non-conformance). You are not able to
|
|
|
|
do that yourself. The CERN OHL adopts the same rationale. However, a
|
|
|
|
relatively simple licence text change would potentially allow recipients
|
|
|
|
of Products and Covered Source to enforce against whoever they received
|
|
|
|
them from. Our concerns are that this would potentially open any
|
|
|
|
contributors up to potential liability from downstream recipients, and
|
|
|
|
thus limit licence adoption, but it is an issue which should be
|
|
|
|
understood and discussed before a final decision is made for this
|
|
|
|
version.
|
|
|
|
|
|
-----
|
|
-----
|
|
|
|
|
... | | ... | |