Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!ptsfa!ames!sdcsvax!ucbvax!Xerox.COM!weiser.pa From: weiser.pa@Xerox.COM.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.windows.x Subject: Re: XVision Distribution Message-ID: <870707-102928-2935@Xerox> Date: Tue, 7-Jul-87 13:29:21 EDT Article-I.D.: Xerox.870707-102928-2935 Posted: Tue Jul 7 13:29:21 1987 Date-Received: Thu, 9-Jul-87 06:28:53 EDT References: <8707070005.AA12302@houdini.UNM.EDU> Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Distribution: world Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 32 As a person with a bit of experience with licensing University software, I find your license agreement to be a reasonably good one. There are three clauses that I object to, and I thought you might find these comments useful: The clause about not rewriting in another language is unduly restrictive for a research product. If the intent is to prevent circumventing the license by a rewrite, then just say that. But what if I want to make a lisp version, or a C++ version, because that is what my research demands? Perhaps you mean to handle rewrites on a case-by-case basis--if so, I hope your intent is to say 'yes'. The clause about indemnifying EECE is remininscent of the onerous Berkeley license. The University of Maryland, and many other places, was unable to sign contracts requiring them to indemnify others. Its too bad to see this in here. It will give you grief. The business about a single back up copy is silly. This is Unix, you know. People just do their normal backups, and that results in as many copies as its results in on the backup tapes, and by making this provision you make people suspicious that (a) you are not serious, (b) you are making sure ALL of your licensee are in violation. You don't even restrict how many copies (non-backup) your licenses can make. The implication in the license is that you are offering a kind of SITE license, and the holder can use the software on as many different machines as they want as long as they are all theirs. I think this is good, this is the same way we did the Maryland software distribution. But then why buy problems by making a single-copy-backup provision? Hope you find these comments useful. -mark