engber@thylacine.CS.WISC.EDU (Mike Engber) (12/20/89)
I'm going to write a utility to be distributed along with a commercial product. Never having written a contract before, I could use some help writing the licensing agreement. The agreement is to be for a fee up front plus some amount per copy distributed. I have no idea what kind of legal language to use. So, if anyone has any experience, a copy of an agreement they used, or anything at all I could use as a starting point, I'd be very appreciative. if possible, respond via email -ME
reid@skorpio.Usask.ca (Irving Reid) (12/27/89)
In article <9430@spool.cs.wisc.edu> engber@thylacine.CS.WISC.EDU (Mike Engber) writes: >I'm going to write a utility to be distributed along with a commercial >product. Never having written a contract before, I could use some help >writing the licensing agreement. I know you wanted responses by e-mail, but this gives me a chance to post something I've been intending to for some time... Check out the "limited warranty" on Think C 4.0. In an age where most software is sold "as is", they warrant that their software will operate "substantially as documented", and promise to correct either the software or documentation or give you your money back if it doesn't. I've been suffering through a contract lately using a 4GL that's buggy as hell, so I'm pretty sensitive about this sort of stuff. Congratulations to Symantec for actually caring enough about software quality to guarantee that their stuff really works. On the other hand, they still have the bogus "opening this sealed envelope acknowledges that you accept our license" language that I really wish someone would take to court and have thrown out. - irving - (reid@abraham.usask.ca)
silverio@brahms.berkeley.edu (C J Silverio) (12/28/89)
Irving Reid likes Think C's license: Check out the "limited warranty" on Think C 4.0. In an age where most software is sold "as is", they warrant that their software will operate "substantially as documented", and promise to correct either the software or documentation or give you your money back if it doesn't. I've been suffering through a contract lately using a 4GL that's buggy as hell, so I'm pretty sensitive about this sort of stuff. Congratulations to Symantec for actually caring enough about software quality to guarantee that their stuff really works. I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on the net, but I once used the "warrantee of implied merchantability" -- that a given product will perform "substantially as advertised/documented" -- to get my money back for a database program that, well, substantially DIDN'T. The point is that all those warranties that say, basically, "by using our product, you agree that you have no warrantees or legal recourse whatsoever" are just plain LYING. Many states in the US enforce certain warrantees no matter what the license says. No amount of capital letters, bold, italic, mumbo-jumbo about "sealed packages", etc, can change that. This is what that incantation about "your rights may vary from state to state" means. It also means that a consumer practically must hire a lawyer to figure out what rights s/he has. Not that the lawyer can help, since the products usually are too inexpensive to fight about in court, and recently judges have been quavering back and forth about what the laws actually mean ANYWAY.
reid@skorpio.Usask.ca (Irving Reid) (01/01/90)
In article <1989Dec27.180649.16935@agate.berkeley.edu> silverio@brahms.berkeley.edu.UUCP (C J Silverio) writes:
:Irving Reid likes Think C's license: [I do, I do!]
: Check out the "limited warranty" on Think C 4.0. In an age where most
: software is sold "as is", they warrant that their software will
: operate "substantially as documented"...
:
:I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on the net, but I once used the
:"warrantee of implied merchantability" -- that a given product will
:perform "substantially as advertised/documented" -- to get my money
:back for a database program that, well, substantially DIDN'T.
Unfortunately the situation is different in Canada. According to the
lawyer I'm working for right now, items purchased for _individual_ use
in Canada are covered by consumer protection law, and warrantee
disclaimers can be invalidated in court. However, if items are
purchased for use by companies no holds are barred. The justification
is that corporate buyers and sellers are assumed to have equal
bargaining power, and therefore they don't need the extra protection.
- irving - (reid@abraham.usask.ca)