--sm4nu43k4a2Rpi4c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 04:34:41AM -0700, Craig White wrote:

> it would be standard practice for them to include language that would
> specifically prohibit them from doing that in the license.

Although a license may state that you cannot sue the company later, I
am under the impression that such statements simply make lawsuits more
difficult.  It probably wouldn't completely protect SCO from future
litigation initiated by licensees.

I am more inclined to believe that SCO is not truly licensing people.
If I were in their place, I would word the "license" along the lines
of: "You may utilize any and all intellectual property owned by the
SCO (with the exception of blah, blah, and blah) without fear of
future litigation or fees relating to such properties."  In this
manner, even if the claims of SCO are struck down, the company can
still (rightly) claim that it completely fulfilled the terms of the
contract.  In fact, SCO does not have to own anything since they
simply promised not to sue.

Of course, such wording sounds even more like extortion...

--=20
                                                           Voltage Spike
      ,,,
     (. .)
--ooO-(_)-Ooo--

--sm4nu43k4a2Rpi4c
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/OoQUpNoctRtUIRQRAp1MAJ44CqgXNPQS/5f5irUVpTwy4lDU2wCcC1Fk
2v0u9JzEXaorydE576Mg6ks=
=jMr7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--sm4nu43k4a2Rpi4c--