• From: "Len Bullard" <cbullard@h...>
• To: "'Michael Kay'" <mike@s...>, "'Dave Pawson'" <davep@d...>, "'Richard Salz'" <rsalz@u...>
• Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 18:10:07 -0600

True statement.   Licensing is one of the areas where one can get
negotiation leverage, thus the whole 'my patents can beat your patents'
game.  That is also why the indemnity clauses are so important because among
other things, they assign the damages to one of the parties should an
undiscovered license creep into the product mix.

The problems are often left to fester until there is some high value
available.  They don't sue people without money unless they a) think they
will have some soon b) need to make an example out of someone c) need to
make their quotas with the stockholders.

If someone made that agreement as you specify, a third party could still sue
for collusion and then you have to fight for a dismissal with prejudice.
I'm not making that up.   Again, that's why indemnity is such a hot topic
when it's time to sign a contract.

As I said, the difference between a criminal and a lawyer is a criminal
knows the difference between right and wrong.  A lawyer knows the difference
between legal and illegal.  These are not the same concepts.

len


From: Michael Kay [mailto:mike@s...] 

I can guarantee you that whatever license you choose (or write), there will
be messages from lawyers telling you that they cannot accept your free gift
because the license conditions are unacceptable. Are you happy to respond
"that's your loss"?

If what you're shipping is any good, there will also be hundreds of people
who use it without reading the license conditions or making any effort to
adhere to them. Do you actually care?

I sometimes think the best license would be one that reads: Whatever
happens, I agree not to sue you and you agree not to sue me.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: GPL and XML and Schemas
    • From: Robert Koberg <rob@k...>

• References:
  • RE: GPL and XML and Schemas
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>