On 11 Aug 99, at 7:13, Tim Bowden wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > I'm considering moving my list of 500+ folks to eGroup. But I'm
> > concerned about the first message in the attached clause of their legal
> > agreement. Does this basically sign the list over to them?
>
> Just an attempt at looking at the other side before the onslaught
> of Privacy Proctors; let me say that I would not operate eGroup
> or any like service without a similar clause. If you have hundreds
> coming through your doors, you will have the dissatisfied, you will
> even have the unstable, and a standard Twit-Off Turn calls for the
> disabused dud to demand under legal threat all her/is treasures be
> removed on those premises. Another possibility (this one I haven't
> experienced) is a demand for "royalties" from their various maggot
> opusii.
>
> Would anyone here open up a list management operation without any
> sort of understanding about the goods posted? Would you, in this
> day and age, enter into any bargain at all without some agreement
> about the product?
Of course not. But to run the MLM would I need an unrestricted,
perpetual license? I think not. If the rights they were asking were
_limited_ in some reasonable way I doubt there would be a problem [go
look at the new Geocities license, for example]. No one is saying that
there should be *NO* agreement nor understanding, but only that many of
us think that that is **MUCH** broader than they need for any rational,
business, or CYA purposes... they can get all the protection they need
for their operation with a MUCH more limited license.
/Bernie\
--
Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Pearisburg, VA
--> Too many people, too few sheep <--
