> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of > Clark Peterson > Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 2:09 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] Ultimate Prestige Classes > > > I should point out that my interpretation below is > just that, my interpretation. But one that seems > reasonable to me. And, I might add, if it meant > anything else would make little sense. One could argue > that only the license as to that product terminates, > but that seems toothless to me in most practical > situations.
But would the court really care whether the remedy was toothless or not, as long as it was the remedy specified in the license? I ask because your interpretation is a little surprising to me. I always saw the license as a product-by-product license; and it seemed reasonable to me that termination of one product license wouldn't affect other product licenses by the same producer. But I trust your opinion in this far more than mine, obviously. Now I have some rethinking to do. The ramifications of these simple little licenses grow ever more intricate... Martin L. Shoemaker Martin L. Shoemaker Consulting, Software Design and UML Training [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.MartinLShoemaker.com http://www.UMLBootCamp.com _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
