RE: Re: Re: Software Licensing Agreement

From: Agenbroad, James \(Civ,ARL/CISD\) <jagenbro[_at_]arl.army.mil>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 15:55:01 -0500

Why mention "irrevocable" when it is not true? It is best to leave it out the license. Although it will shorten the length of license by only one word, it will spare many questions and misunderstandings for the next 35 years.

Joseph Pietro Riolo
<josephpietrojeungriolo[_at_]gmail.com>
<riolo[_at_]voicenet.com>

Perhaps the law will change. I wouldn't bet the farm on the proposition that big IP concerns wouldn't get the 35 year revocation clause changed. After all, they managed to get the copyright on existing works lengthened 20 years in exchange for... well nothing really. If they can't turn EVERYTHIG into a WMFH, getting rid of the revocation clause works just as well for them. Received on Sat Jan 28 2006 - 01:55:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:56 GMT