Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 04:25:37PM -0700, OSS wrote:Maybe I should have been clearer, I was following a sublicence chain. I don't see how a change to Lucent's liscense impacted the one already granted to you, which then could be granted to me (in the abscence of a term similar to IBM's CPL after the fact change which I didn't see). Following this chain, if it did I guess I'd just have to mail CDs rather than allow downloads :-)That's the part I mentioned not being clear: on one hand, they say I can sublicense, and on the other, they say that all copies downloaded after a license revision are under the new license. Which is it? (I don't know.)
Glenn,Maybe I'm more aggressive in my interpretation - following the guidance of a legal adviser who told me a licence grant is unlikely to be further restricted by reference to the courts, grab the broad terms and hold on. As he said, the Judge knows the licensor had the opportunity to write down exactly what they were granting.
As such, I see a grant to sublicense as clear. Future licences are irrelevant to my licence - mine has an ability to sublicense and is good-to-go.
BTW, thanks for the heat over the email display address. There were a pair of assumptions in-house: 1) I knew how to configure my email clients and 2) my email clients had been configured for me. I think everything is now straightened out (although "reply" still goes to the poster not the list). I've used too many systems where clients were "happy" their accounts were Q14cqX@subloc.loc.server.dept.moonphase, so odd display names don't register.
regards Dave