On 24 May 2001, James LewisMoss wrote:
>
>Please cc me on any replies. I'm not currently subscribed to this
>list.
>
>I've got three send back changes clauses. Comments on whether they
>are free?
All three sound DFSG free, since you use the weasel words "best efforts".
The big issue that I've s
> >; 2. Users of this software agree to make their best efforts (a) to
> >; return to me any improvements or extensions that they make, so that
> >; these may be included in future releases; and (b) to inform me of
> >; noteworthy uses of this software.
>
> The B section here really is outside th
On Fri, 25 May 2001, Walter Landry wrote:
>> >; 2. Users of this software agree to make their best efforts (a) to
>> >; return to me any improvements or extensions that they make, so that
>> >; these may be included in future releases; and (b) to inform me of
>> >; noteworthy uses of this softwar
On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 06:55:54PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
> You're right, though in context, classification is enough to foil "best
> effort". Basically, the weasel words come to the rescue again.
>
As one counterexample, decisions in shareholder lawsuits have interpreted
the terms "best effort
4 matches
Mail list logo
