On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 01:38:13 -0500, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If Oracle doesn't eat your rear for lunch, 

That would be more like an appetizer at a california cuisine place.

> it would only be because you
> hadn't annoyed them sufficiently for them to bother.  Under the terms of
> the license agreement that you presumably clicked through, you gave up
> your rights to publish anything they don't like.  Do a little Google
> research.  For instance
> http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/01/04/16/010416opfoster.html

I did do the research, but couldn't find one instance where someone
was actually taken to task over it. So far it appears to be bluster.
Horrifying to some, but still bluster.

> The impression I get is that if you are willing to spend lots of $$
> you could *maybe* win the case, if you can still find a judge who thinks
> that the public good outweighs private contract law (good luck, with the
> Republicans in office).  Do you have a larger budget for legal issues
> than Oracle does?  If so, step right up.

The reason I asked is because this has a lot more to do with than just
money. This is restriction of speech as well, and publishing
benchmarks (simply as statistical data) cannot in any way be construed
as defamation or libel. Just because it is in the click-wrap contract
doesn't mean you waive certain rights, and this has been proven (and
now has precedence). Again, I would love to know of any instances
where someone published (forbidden) benchmarks and was actually
pursued in a court of law. Well, and the result, too ;-)

I ask not to cause trouble, but to learn if this is just a deterrent
that has never been tested ("small pebble") or a well-defined threat
that will be enforced ("plasma cannon").

-- Mitch, thinking this is off topic but still fascinating

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to