Re: three send back changes clauses
On Sun, 27 May 2001, Walter Landry wrote:
>> >I don't agree. This puts a restriction on _users_. This means that
>> >it can't be used in the NSA, FBI, Los Alamos, typical Silicon Valley
>> >startups, or any other place that doesn't let people talk about what
>> >they do. That violates DFSG#6: No Discrimination Against Fields of
>> >Endeavor.
>>
>> You're right, though in context, classification is enough to foil "best
>> effort". Basically, the weasel words come to the rescue again.
>
>It seems like you're interpreting the weasel words to make the whole
>clause have no practical effect. I don't think that we can really do
>that. You're saying that if my boss tells me not to contribute back
>changes, that is enough to foil "best effort". What if it is my wife?
>What about the voices I hear in my head? I still think that the
>package can't go in main.
Best effort has traditionally been seen by the courts as exactly that.
Triple-A Baseball Club Associates v. Northeastern Baseball, Inc., 832
F.2d 214, 225 (1st Cir. 1987).
General Dynamics Corp. v. United States, 671 F.2d 474, 480 (Ct. Cl.1982).
These citations were from the discussion of law in _Hughes v NASA_
http://www.contracts.ogc.doc.gov/fedcl/opinions/2000opin/91-1032C.html
Hughes v NASA was rather unique, a "best effort" contract in breach. This
came from the fact that NASA repudiated the contract in 1986 or
thereabouts.
http://www.icann.org/registrars/register.com-verio/order-08dec00.htm
Here's a nice one: Verio was supposed to use it's best efforts to purge
all WHOIS information out of it's databases :) I'm guessing they got rid
of three emails...
>Regards, Walter Landry landry@physics.utah.edu
>
--
There is no problem so great that it cannot be solved with suitable
application of High Explosives.
Who is John Galt? galt@inconnu.isu.edu, that's who!
Reply to: