Henry the VIII HAD IT RIGHT,"The first thing i am going to do is kill all the lawwyers
On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Duane Roelands <duane.roela...@gmail.com>wrote: > > No, no, a thousand times no. > > "Licensor further warrants to oneforty and its Customers and > Sublicensees that the Licensed Item shall be free from defects in > workmanship or design" > Does OneForty understand that the "licensed item" is -software- and > that software often contains bugs? Who determines what a "defect in > design" is? OneForty? Me? Their lawyers? > > "Licensor further warrants to oneforty and its Customers and > Sublicensees that the Licensed Item shall not contain any information > or content of whatever nature that is defamatory, obscene, indecent, > pornographic, seditious, offensive, threatening, liable to incite > racial hatred, blasphemous..." > "Blasphemous"? Really? So if my code includes a comment that states > "I can't make this goddamn thing work", I'm violation of the > contract. "Offensive"? To whom? > > "Licensor shall maintain reasonable insurance" > Insurance? I need to maintain insurance to claim my free, open-source > Twitter client in OneForty's directory? > > "Licensor agrees that it will not use “oneforty”, “oneforty.com” or > any other trademark held by oneforty in keyword meta tags or any pages > of Licensor’s website or any website(s) owned or operated by > Licensor." > So, I can't have a link on my page that says "Check us out on > OneForty!" or "We're listed on OneForty!" or "Post a review on > OneForty!" > > Laura from OneForty has the best intentions, and I really believe that > she wants to produce a developer-friendly community where everyone > reaps benefits. That's great, and I applaud her for her efforts to > make this work. This agreement (and the noxious one that preceded it) > give me the impression that OneForty's lawyers have a fundamental > ignorance of software, software development, and the internet in > general. > >
