ATT SOURCE CODE AGREEMENT Version 1.2C
David Starner
dvdeug at x8b4e53cd.dhcp.okstate.edu
Fri Sep 10 05:28:13 UTC 1999
On Thu, Sep 09, 1999 at 08:15:57PM -0700, Mark Wells wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Sep 1999, Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
>
> > > 2. In the event that any provision of this Agreement is deemed
> > > illegal or unenforceable, AT&T may, but is not obligated to, post
> > > on the Website a new version of this Agreement which, in AT&T's
> > > opinion, reasonably preserves the intent of this Agreement.
> >
> > I think that loophole is way too large. "Deemed illegal or unenforceable" by
> > whom? Also, this clause appears worse than the original Apple public license
> > in terms of being able to revoke rights to use software already licensed.
>
> I think it's clear that only a court can deem something in a contract
> "illegal or unenforceable". It would be nice for them to say that up
> front, though.
Where though? I'm quite sure that if AT&T needed to invalid the license, it
could find some court in Rwanda, or Vietnam, or Austria, or Lousiana who would
declare in illegal or unenforcablee.
David Starner - dstarner98 at aasaa.ofe.org
More information about the License-discuss
mailing list