Re: three send back changes clauses
On Sun, 27 May 2001, Walter Landry wrote:
>From: John Galt <galt@inconnu.isu.edu>
>Subject: Re: three send back changes clauses
>Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 21:13:21 -0600 (MDT)
>
>> >> 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).
>
>Do you have an online reference handy? I don't have easy access to a
>law library.
No. You have as much capability in this regard as I do. Probably more,
as USU has a bit better library than ISU...
>> 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.
>
>This case supports my point. NASA was told by it's "boss", Ronald
>Reagan, to give low priority to commercial launches. The judge
^^^^
YM "no", HTH.
>decided that NASA couldn't use that as as excuse to not launch Hughes'
>satellites. This is analagous to a boss in a company telling their
>underlings not to reveal what they do to anyone, even though it may be
>quite noteworthy.
Only a few months later, NASA sent Hughes a letter
essentially repudiating its obligation to use best efforts through the
remainder of the contract: "It appears almost certain you will not be
provided launch services either prior to or after your current
contract expires." NASA had the room and the resources to launch some
of Hughes' satellites, but it chose to favor itself and other
government and commercial users over Hughes. By this letter NASA
announced to Hughes that rather than using its best efforts, it would
use no effort to meet its obligation to launch ten satellites.
^^^^^^^^^
>Also, the court specifically said that "best effort"=="act in good
>faith". I don't see how you say that someone who uses the software
>but has no intention of ever contributing back changes (because their
>boss told them not to) is acting in good faith. The software should
>still not go in main.
Fine, whatever, file the damn bugs against scheme <=7.4 then. Option C
was clause 2 of the scheme license.
http://www.swiss.ai.mit.edu/projects/scheme/7.4/license.html
>> 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...
>
>I'm not sure what this case has to do with the current discussion. I
>couldn't find any mention there of what "best effort" means.
It's part of the disposition. Basically, Verio was supposed to make its
best effort to clean out their database of WHOIS information. They still
spammed everybody and their brother, so their best effort was probably
having some PFY look at the database for names they could safely purge.
>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: