> The suits are taking over. Sad. Hi, Abdul. Welcome to the 1990's... ;-)
> The language of this agreement is far more sophisticated than anything > before. Altium has clearly spent a lot of their cash on lawyers. Do they > really want their users to notice that "the licensed materials are not > designed, intended, or authorized for use in components of systems intended > for, or in relation to the operation of, weapons, ... means of mass > transportation, aviation, life-support ..., pollution control....? Why don't they just cut to the chase, and use this clause: You (the buyer) hereby agree to give us (the seller) lots of money, with the understanding that we (the seller) are not obligated to provide any goods or services, and that any goods or services we actually do provide are not obligated to be suitable for any particular purpose whatsoever, especially the advertised purpose. Further, the possession and use of said goods and provision of services may be revoked by us at any time, for any reason, without refund. In the event of legal proceedings, the law is what we say it is. Buyer agrees to pay all litigation costs, including costs of seller's attorneys. Ain't business fun? Best regards, Ivan Baggett Bagotronix Inc. website: www.bagotronix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Abd ulRahman Lomax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Protel EDA Discussion List" <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 12:19 AM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Wanted: P99SE > The plot thickens. Seems I have not been paying close enough attention to > all that fine print. > > From the DXP 2004 EULA: > > 12. NON-ASSIGNMENT > > Without Altium's prior written consent, neither this License nor any > interest herein or part hereof will be transferable or assignable by User, > by operation of law or otherwise, without Altium's prior written consent, > and including whether such transfer or assignment is by operation of law, > agreement of merger, sale of assets or otherwise. > > This wording is much stronger than anything in the past. In fact, "without > Altium's prior written consent" is even redundantly stated. Someone really > wanted to nail it in..... The agreement also contains about the strongest > wording I've ever seen about "this license contains the entire agreement > and understanding between the parties with respect of the subject matter > hereof and supersedes all prior agreements, understandings and > representations, whether oral or in writing." > > I do not get a good feeling from this. > > I find section 3 of the agreement next to unintelligible. Someone explain > what section 3.3 means! The reference to destruction of copies prior to > transfer is, as I recall, language from the old user agreement. It makes > sense in the context of a transfer of the software, and 3.5 is clearly a > reference to the inclusion of prior versions with the transfer of an > upgrade. Section 3.3, the best interpretation I can give it, explicitly > allows transfer of the software, and does not mention the consent of > Altium. It explicitly overrides the restriction in 3.2 requiring Altium's > consent. But there is just enough vagueness and possible contradiction in > it.... > > 3.5 is actually a mangled mess. What was apparently intended to be a > restriction requiring transfer of a prior version used for upgrade with a > transfer of the upgraded version has become, as worded, a requirement that > *if the user has even purchased an "earlier version," that version must be > transferred. Here is what that explicitly says (which I somewhat doubt was > the intention): If I bought a copy of Protel 99SE, and never upgraded it, > and, for another seat, I bought a copy of DXP, *without using the earlier > license for an upgrade or "discount", and then I transferred the copy of > DXP to someone else, the 99SE license would have to be transferred with it. > > The language of this agreement is far more sophisticated than anything > before. Altium has clearly spent a lot of their cash on lawyers. Do they > really want their users to notice that "the licensed materials are not > designed, intended, or authorized for use in components of systems intended > for, or in relation to the operation of, weapons, ... means of mass > transportation, aviation, life-support ..., pollution control....? > > I've seen restrictions like that for physical components. And there it > makes sense. Hi-rel components are expected to cost more, they have more > stringent testing. > > But this software is indeed being used for applications like that, and > commonly. I think there is a disclaimer that could have been written that > would have protected Altium from claim for matters outside their control, > and, definitely, the responsibility for checking designs and determining > their reliability is not and should not be Altium's. The fact is that *no* > software is "designed" to avoid the need for thorough validation and > verification; but plenty of software is designed for general electronics > use, which includes use as a design tool. Not as a guarantee of safety. > > The suits are taking over. Sad. > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You are subscribed to the PEDA discussion forum > > To Post messages: > mailto:[email protected] > > Unsubscribe and Other Options: > http://techservinc.com/mailman/listinfo/peda_techservinc.com > > Browse or Search Old Archives (2001-2004): > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] > > Browse or Search Current Archives (2004-Current): > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] > ____________________________________________________________ You are subscribed to the PEDA discussion forum To Post messages: mailto:[email protected] Unsubscribe and Other Options: http://techservinc.com/mailman/listinfo/peda_techservinc.com Browse or Search Old Archives (2001-2004): http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] Browse or Search Current Archives (2004-Current): http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
