>>>>> On 05 Jul 2000 16:05:56 +0200, Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Henning> Scripsit James LewisMoss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> On 30 Jun 2000 18:49:01 +0200, Henning Makholm >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: Henning> That is a very broad clause: "Recipient will .. indemnify Henning> .. SGI from, .. any loss ... arising out of Recipient's use Henning> .. of the Covered Code". That seems to mean that if I use Henning> the software in a business that competes successfully with Henning> SGI, they could sue me and demand that I pay up for their Henning> lost profits. If that's a legal interpretation I'd say this Henning> is quite nonfree. >> This reads to me just as a no warranty clause. Henning> That is probably the intent of it. However, can you refuse Henning> that my reading is one of the cases the language actually Henning> covers? Actually yes. It looks like a standard no warranty clause. It uses big words and could have been clearer by just saying NO WARRANTY, but I don't see your reading in it. Jim -- @James LewisMoss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Blessed Be! @ http://jimdres.home.mindspring.com | Linux is kewl! @"Argue for your limitations and sure enough, they're yours." Bach
