"John Goerzen" <jgoerzen@complete.org> wrote in message [🔎] 20060607131414.GB10808@excelhustler.com">news:[🔎] 20060607131414.GB10808@excelhustler.com...
First of all, corporate winds can change. But really my point is not that SPI should have rejected this license. My point is that SPI should have been consulted about the indemnification so that we could get the advice of our attorney, and perhaps based on his feedback, either raise concerns about it (or not).
I don't think anybody really feels that letting SPI's laywers be aware of the situations is a bad thing.
With the FAQ now possibly binding, at the level of verbal contract, or perhaps even written contract, this is a non isue. The faq limits the scope to idenmifing Sun from being legal responsible for problems and flaws that are ontroduced by a distributer. That almost seems like a No-op. The orginal source of a peice of software is obviously not liable for flaws that a distributer adds to a peice of software.
-- John