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