Re: Sun clarifies intent of the DLJ
On Tue, 6 Jun 2006, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> Although I'm not sure about the absolute validity of the argument that
> licences have to be written incomprehensibly, I certainly think that this
> revised FAQ preamble allows people to rely on the statements in the FAQ
> sufficiently.
I don't get it. Half of the problem was that the FAQ said it doesn't count,
but the other half of the problem was that the license said that the FAQ
doesn't count. It seems that fixing the preamble fixes the first half of the
problem but not the second.
The license still says that it "supersedes all prior or contemporaneous
oral or written communications, proposals, representations and warranties and
prevails over any conflicting or additional terms of any quote, order,
acknowledgment, or other communication between the parties relating to its
subject matter during the term of this Agreement". So the FAQ--including the
part of the preamble which says that it does count--still doesn't count
after all.
Reply to: