Re: [9fans] The new ridiculous license

[Tom Glinos <tg@cquest.utoronto.ca>]

>Can you explain this?  None of us can see that.

I could go on and on why I don't like that clause.

Let's take a look at the first sentence. It includes the word "may".
(That word pops up later on as well as well as "would" and "might")
You NEVER use the word "may" when writing a contract.
Such weasel words get you into trouble every time.

Let's take a look at the intent of that clause. As I see it the idea
to layout idemnity relationships between Lucent, the "Distributor",
the "Contributor", and the "End User". Idemnity is a good thing. But this
clause gets it wrong. The language isn't crystal clear.

It then goes on to dictate how parties should act in a legal action.
What if the end user/contributor/Lucent is a prick?
Why would I want to tie my hands and close my options in a legal fight?
Why won't Lucent share in my risk if I change the way I do business? Why won't
you idemnify me? In fact in a fight I'd probably drag Lucent in and sue them.

I have a better idea.
If you wanted to say "nobody and sue anybody because of use of this stuff" then
say it.

As others have pointed out it conflicts with the "NO WARRANTY" and "DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY".
If you REALLY mean those clauses, then you don't need the idemnity clause.

The license would be cleaner and stronger if you were to remove that clause.

Just my opinion.