On 3 Aug 2004, at 10:03, Neil Barstow wrote:
just to clear up one point, I think you were perhaps mistaken about the Gretag licence policy:
Hi Neil,
I stand to be corrected ,and I'm sure that you must be right , but Gretag had just been informed us otherwise ( to our surprise ) which is why I bought the subject up.
My information was from the main man at Gretag UK ( I think you know who I mean ) who advised us of the illegality of our ways <BG>.
His interpretation of the software agreement , although possibly flawed , is different. The conversation came about when we made enquiries as to how we could go about building profiles for the Pic4Press initiative. You probably remember that we came up against the same obstacle when doing the same thing with ProFile (I believe that Thomas had some input on that issue at the time).
Our enquiry went along the lines of " what if we are only using the profile for free distribution in the public domain" as opposed to distribution within third party software . The categorical answer was that under the present licensing agreements this would not be possible as any distribution of profiles that benefitted a third party , whether paid for or not , would be illegal, and by extension this applied to those provided by consultants, so you can see why we are concerned.
We do know that this clause has already prevented one scheme that would have been in the public interest , and that's why we made the initial call. It was left that our man at Gretag UK would contact Switzerland and give us an answer ASAP (but not yet :-) )
It would be fantastic If you could clarify the situation with your contacts at Gretag and let us know the outcome.
Regards,
Bob Marchant.
=============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
