Eric writes:
>
>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?
>
 
Sure it sounds like blackmail. But how is it different from the agreements
that we have with IBM, Digital, etc.??
 
True, with most of these vendors, we have a license agreement with an annual
fee. However, the upshot is the same. If we call in a bug, and report that
we are not running the latest version (or a recent one), these vendors inform
us that we should upgrade to the new version and then see if the bug still
exists.
 
Further, we are offered no assurance that a "fix shipment" will work on any
but the latest version. In fact, it is likely that it will not.
 
I'm not trying to suggest that Eric should become the next "big blue"
software publisher. However, these terms are set out by such companies in
order to protect themselves from the demands of their users. They've learned
through years of experience and hundreds of contracts that such protections
are necessary.
 
Learn from them. Cover your posterior.
 
jb