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