From owner-freebsd-hackers  Thu May  9 18:19:12 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id SAA24883
          for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 9 May 1996 18:19:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ref.tfs.com (ref.tfs.com [140.145.254.251])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA24834
          for <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Thu, 9 May 1996 18:19:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from julian@localhost) by ref.tfs.com (8.7.3/8.6.9) id QAA23517; Wed, 8 May 1996 16:28:29 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199605082328.QAA23517@ref.tfs.com>
Subject: Re: Copyright question
To: jkh@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard)
Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 16:28:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: "JULIAN Elischer" <julian@ref.tfs.com>
Cc: eischen@pcnet.com, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <25051.831590192@time.cdrom.com> from "Jordan K. Hubbard" at May 8, 96 02:16:32 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25 ME8b]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> 
> 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
>