I changed the subject header because this isn't really related to the ATT
license any longer.
On 10 Sep 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Yes. My point was that such a license clause was not practical because of the
> effect on the distributor. Did I convey that adequately?
From: Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> How so? The distributor puts it in stores and warns people that they can only
> use it if they agree to the terms. If they don't, the distributor has
> violated the agreement and that particular copy is pirated and can't be used.
But that's not what your prototype license clause said:
> "you may only distribute to people who agree to abide by the usage
> limitations"
This places the burden of _determining_ that the customer _has_ agreed to
comply upon the distributor. The distributor must not only warn the customer,
he must actually _verify_ that the customer has agreed, most likely by
getting a signature, before the act of distribution may take place, or
else the distributor is in breach.
Now, please think of what we can practically do at retail.
Thanks
Bruce
