There are two problems with that  approach. The first is that there might
be a  list exit enforcing  some actual subscription control,  even though
the list  reads "Subscription=  Open". The second  and most  important is
that  80%  of US  LISTSERV  sites  are still  trying  to  figure out  the
CREN/L-Soft paperwork.  Then in 3 days  they may or may  not realize they
have  missed  the deadline,  and  start  from  scratch with  our  regular
maintenance agreement. John  on the other hand wants to  release in July.
You wouldn't believe  the amount of confusion this  30-page CREN contract
has caused. We get contracts with a starting date of July 1 and an ending
date of  June 30 (yes, both  94 ;-) ). Ok,  that's rare, but we  get many
contracts with a  starting date of July 1 when  the CREN/L-Soft agreement
requires you to have registered for the period ending on June 30, 1994 if
you want  to benefit  from the contract.  And we get  a lot  of contracts
where the master  CREN/L-Soft legalese was included and  modified, and we
are asked  to initial  the changes.  So we explain  that the  contract in
question was  signed on March 12  and it is  what it is. The  parties are
CREN and  L-Soft, not L-Soft  and U of  XYZ. Just initialing  the changes
unilaterally won't  change the  contract. The lawyer  then says  he can't
accept this or that clause and it must positively be nullified in writing
or  he won't  sign. We  say get  a written  waiver from  CREN (these  are
usually clauses saying CREN has certain rights which the customer doesn't
like).  Two months  later we  get a  new copy  with a  PO for  $0.00, but
otherwise just the same, please initial  changes and return, and we get a
State of XYZ Procurement Form to fill  in as a bonus. Sometimes they send
the contracts to  CREN. Often we get  a PO for $0.00  covering the period
DEC94-JUN95.  We can't  take  such POs  because that's  not  the way  the
contract works.  Anyway, we end  up spending  more time doing  legal user
support than we'd spend actually supporting the software, and in spite of
that  the  success rate  is  only  on the  order  of  2/3. Meanwhile  the
technical people get  frustrated and the purchasing officers  who have to
track the $0.00 PO wonder what is going on. When we make a straight sale,
on the  other hand, the  contracts are reviewed in  at most 2-3  weeks. I
guess  that's because  lawyers are  particularly suspicious  of something
which  is  free  but  very  complicated,  whereas  a  standard  licensing
agreement is something  they can handle in 15 minutes.  At any rate there
are 33 US sites out of 166 licensed for 1.8a and it will take a while for
the others  to realize  they missed  the deadline  and should  start from
scratch with a different  procedure. By the way, NERVM is  one of the 133
;-)
 
  Eric