From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: From: David Presotto To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] license section 4 In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="upas-xmqrutynrfhzxmycwdwdihmest" Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 15:59:41 -0400 Topicbox-Message-UUID: cdd024c8-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --upas-xmqrutynrfhzxmycwdwdihmest Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit You read incorrectly. If the contributor made the claim then the action isn't ``caused by the acts or omissions of such Commercial Distributor''. It is a definite problem with English sentences that sometimes all the words and clauses are indeed important. This is often especially true of legal statements. --upas-xmqrutynrfhzxmycwdwdihmest Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Received: from plan9.cs.bell-labs.com ([135.104.9.2]) by plan9; Tue Jun 17 15:55:01 EDT 2003 Received: from mail.cse.psu.edu ([130.203.4.6]) by plan9; Tue Jun 17 15:52:58 EDT 2003 Received: from psuvax1.cse.psu.edu (psuvax1.cse.psu.edu [130.203.20.6]) by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP id DF4B019A0B; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 15:52:08 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Received: from athena.softcardsystems.com (mail.softcardsystems.com [12.34.136.114]) by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP id 51BAD19999 for <9fans@cse.psu.edu>; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 15:51:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from athena (athena [12.34.136.114]) by athena.softcardsystems.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h5HIu8Bc006717 for <9fans@cse.psu.edu>; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:56:08 -0400 From: Sam X-Sender: To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [9fans] license section 4 Sender: 9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu Errors-To: 9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu X-BeenThere: 9fans@cse.psu.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu List-Id: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans.cse.psu.edu> List-Archive: Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:56:08 -0400 (EDT) What's the background on the example for section 4? To me, it reads that if a contributor makes claim A, distributor reiterates claim A, and for some strange reason a lawsuit is filed against said contributor because of that claim, the distributor (which of possibly many?) is liable for incurring the expense of litigation and damages resulting from that claim. While I understand the notion that if there are no claims, the distributor is responsible for defending the veracity of any claims *it* makes, (as section 5 and unfitness for any particular purpose would indicate), I can't see why this is worth stating outright. Is this patent violation related? Cheers, Sam --upas-xmqrutynrfhzxmycwdwdihmest--