Re: Who can make binding legal agreements
"John Goerzen" <email@example.com> 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.