Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 16:28:29 -0700 (PDT) From: "JULIAN Elischer" <julian@ref.tfs.com> To: jkh@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard) Cc: eischen@pcnet.com, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Copyright question Message-ID: <199605082328.QAA23517@ref.tfs.com> In-Reply-To: <25051.831590192@time.cdrom.com> from "Jordan K. Hubbard" at May 8, 96 02:16:32 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > It looks like clause 4 is trying to enforce legally what most > companies seek to achieve simply by never releasing information on > their products. Not that I want Condor to go that route, mind you, > but I don't think that what they're trying to achieve with clause 4 is > even legally achievable. I'm sure that the person in my hypothetical > example above would have a pretty good case for "insufficient notice" > if this ever came to court, so clause 4 doesn't even really have any > teeth and can only cause FUD by being there. I'd be happier to see it > go. I don;t think that clause 4 impacts US in any way, and I can't see how they could enforce it is someone DECIDED to try use clone card, so I'd say, "include it. it doesn't bother us" > > Jordan >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199605082328.QAA23517>