On Thu, 16 Feb 1995, Eric Thomas wrote: > On Fri, 17 Feb 1995 13:56:39 -0600 "Laurence A. Bates" > <[log in to unmask]> said: >.... > following a beta test involving my employer, I would have been fired for > gross misconduct, because the beta agreement was in writing and noone > wants to be sued by IBM. So what is going to happen is that the next time > MSU wants to test any of our products, there will have to be a written > contract with clear penalties for non observance. And if more sites do > the same, we will just require everyone to sign contracts. Let's just calm down here.... (call it protecting my sanity :-))...I want to keep the contracts simple so a simple postmaster knows what she (or he) is getting into.....I think we could have been classified as beta site since Lsoft had no commercial product for us at the time we tested software, though we explicitly asked about the price, we did not advertize it to other sites....we didn't sign a contract...we went on good faith and your reputation in the past. This worked very well I think, even though I had to pass on the final agreement to our accountant because I had a problem understanding your laywers.. :-) Maybe I mis- understand, but I can't promise a signature for beta testing....only good faith. I hope you consider sites similar to ours who act in good faith before you require formal agreements to just test a new version of Listserv. ....or heaven forbid, restrict ftp access to the evaluation copies to sites who agree to sign an agreement. My thoughts....my tired thoughts as it has been a long day. --Trish -- Trish Forrest Computing Services University of windsor