[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
If I were in New York state I'd probably be inclined to ignore the "no
benchmarks" clauses in the license agreements, at least for now. As I
understand it this may be subject to change under the UCITA law being
pushed by the software companies, which would strengthen click-through
"agreements". The fact is that I live just down the street from MS
headquarters in Washington, and I certainly can't afford to take on the
most innovative legal team in the industry. :-)
I honestly didn't mean to start a flame war on this topic. I'm certainly
not a fan of MS, but they're hardly alone in having this sort of clause
in their license agreement. Sun actually had a clause like this in an
early version of the Java license, though that's long since been
dropped. Meanwhile, I've asked one of the main Microsoft participants on
this list if he can direct me to someone with the power to give
permission for a benchmark with public results.
- Dennis
Jeff Lowery wrote:
>This case may be applicable:
>
>http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/01/18/149224&mode=thread
>
>If it's a BETA license agreement, that could be a different kettle of fish.
>Those licenses often have nondisclosure clauses: you're granted the
>privilege of using the beta as long as you keep quiet about the
>(mis)features. Those a court would probably uphold.
>
>Of course there's the cost of attorney's should you get sued even
>frivolously, so...
>
>
>
>
|
