(c) the Contractor shall not bundle with or incorporate into any Work
Product any third-party products, ideas, processes, software, codes,
data, techniques, names, images, or other items or properties without
the express, written prior approval of the Company;
Now, I advised them from the get go that this doesn't make sense
because we are using Rails which has an MIT license and permits us to
use Rails for a commercial website, so a clause like this doesn't seem
to take into account that we are building a website and not packaged
software.
However, I don't know what to do about this as far as keeping the
lawyer appeased about the plugins I'm using. Some people license
their plugins with MIT some just don't include a license. For those
that don't include licenses do I have to contact them for license to
make this truly legally kosher?
What do you guys do about this?
I haven't seen this clause before, but I have seen other to the effect
that if third-party 'stuff' is to be used, that I'm responsible for
the associated licensing.
>From their perspective, I'd think they just don't want to get caught
after the fact in a situation they weren't aware of and have no
recourse.
For example, adding a clause to that paragraph which limited it to
only things that would violate the intellectual property rights of a
third party would probably solve this particular problem. Not sure
what exact wording you would need to put in their as I'm not an
attorney but you get the idea.
Chris
No go.
Trying to explain to a lawyer how open source software works in a
legal fashion is beyond my skillset as a developer. I can debate why
Ruby being slow is a red herring in the Rails scaling debate, I can
pursuade why database contraints aren't needed if you aren't
integrating at the database and also why you shouldn't integrate at
the database (especially now), I could even argue that for failing
software projects 90% of them fail before the first line of code is
even written. But...
I can't argue with a lawyer about how open source licensing works
because I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not even sure I understand how it
all works.
Now at this point I would make a very long and impassioned argument
why the community should be taking care of this problem, and that
plugin authors should be cajoled and pleaded with to explicitly
include licenses with their plugins... But that wouldn't be very
Rails like would it?
Instead, DHH once again does it for me...
Giles Bowkett - Quotes and Notes from DHH's Railsconf 2007 Keynote
http://gilesbowkett.blogspot.com/2007/05/quotes-and-notes-from-dhhs-railsconf.html
""The MIT Assumption" - slide title. Here's something actually
interesting - DHH loves the MIT license. MIT license is autogenerated
by default if you build plugins or whatever. There's something funny
about that, but it's a very useful thing. DHH's business sense is a
huge part of what makes Rails great."
Problem solved in the future, but for now it looks like I have track
down the licenses or pull the plugins.
Tim