On Mon, 20 Feb 89 19:44:04 GMT Eric Thomas (CERN/L3) said: >8. Whenever "significant functionality" is added to the code, as defined by > Eric Thomas, EARN will be given the option to purchase this new > functionality, at the price defined by Eric Thomas and subject to the > limits of $nnnn/year and $mmmm/shipment. If EARN accept, the new code will > be distributed to EARN as defined in clause 7. If EARN refuses, it will not > be made available to EARN, and Eric Thomas will not be able to guarantee > that future "fix" shipments will be usable "as is" on the EARN version of > LISTSERV. > >* This is the clause that I find to be most problematic. The way it is written >* it sounds like your typical class B thriller blackmail, but if you write it >* in another way EARN will be able to demand fixes that do not depend on new >* features from me, and this is not acceptable to me. Any idea? The only trick in making this part acceptable is finding values for nnnn and mmmm which are acceptable to both parties. That would limit EARN's cost for a year, no matter how many separate bits of "significant functionality" Eric decides to offer each year. Of course, EARN may say that say that the highest value they can accept for nnnn (and therefore mmmm) is $0, in which case this whole plan falls apart. What really concerns me is the possibility that some item of "significant functionality" which EARN might choose to refuse would be necessary for the network(s)wide integrity of LISTSERV, or might be a prerequisite for something which must be uniform across all interconnected LISTSERVs. Assuring that this category of "required" fixes can be installed with or without any specific item of "significant functionality" would be an additional burden, which neither Eric nor the EARN LISTSERV maintainer(s) might be willing and able to support. That would bring us to the parting of the ways which we are fighting so hard to avoid. --Mark