[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Sun clarifies intent of the DLJ



On Wed, 7 Jun 2006 09:42:01 -0700 (PDT) Ken Arromdee wrote:

> 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.

I think you're right.
It seems the FAQ is still non-binding on Sun...

-- 
    :-(   This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS?   ;-)
......................................................................
  Francesco Poli                             GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment: pgpKbm2rIOjm6.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: