clause 5

humm, I am not a software lawyer but I have seen a lot of agreements in 24 years and I get some of the intent here. Lets start with visual aids. I envision EULA's are somewhat of a cross between a sponge and a sea urchin. Squeeze and either you get stabbed or trapped water dribbles everywhere. I'll start with a small 'poke at the intent. Plan #A -- Trade free for free Rebol-Tech would like to be able to post more stuff to its web site to display the versatility of the product (rebol that is). If you write something non-trivial they want the right to show it off. The trade offered is "Your thingie becomes free from us if you freely give away rebol/core (our stuff)." ouch? ... not really. This may be a stretch for some of us but pretend you have a lot o time on your hands. Maybe enough to write a book. Certainly enough to author some cool rebol glue scripts. Eventually you cobble together an app and you "release" version 0.1. If you want rebol-tech to help you "publish" your app then this is an excellent deal. A win-win in the making... You get fame (licensee in header) even if you never finish writing the book. [this is] Particularly applicable if you never planned to charge for the app itself (it was just gonna be examples in the book). Apps for profit? Programmer for hire? - just cut R-T in for pennies Plan #B - [b]uy /runtime What it comes down to is that your app is not standalone. It needs at least a rebol/core to run. The (5) clause is there to cover the lowest-end arrangements. Somewhere below a penny. [ http://www.rebol.com/cmd_runtime.html handles all the others ] Remember that it applies to redistribution WITH your app. If you are charging for Rebol programming or a built app then plan to pay for the core and know that it wont be a lot. $50 is cheap for an entry-level SDK. $799 is very tolerable if you target micropayments and millions of downloads for your killer-app. What about privacy/copyrights and control? If you don't redistribute rebol/core then your app itself can be as private as you need it to be. (5) as it stands, does not apply to you. ( a /big/, and I am fairly certain - intentional, loophole here ;) /me sees water squirting everywhere over that one. If the customer has rebol already then you don't have to do anything special. Hows this for control of the source: If you like, you can get away not even sending the customer your script! Just a rebol header and a 'do with a URL pointing back at your public server! You can even tell how many times the product was run! My experience is this only fails if customer cant surf for some reason. Plan #C - make the [c]ustomer "aware" Rebol is in there Get your customers to get their own copies of rebol/core. Customers/clients become end-users. R-T is protected from indirect lawsuits. Works for me. Spreads rebol around too. [ yea I know, I -am- doing technical support for those curious monkeys (ahem customers) who notice rebol icons after they install and try drag-and-drop random things onto it ;] If you want to keep the curious monkeys at bay use plan #B -- get N copies of /runtime and bind it with your app. This immediately puts you under a different agreement (which I am looking for on the rebol.com site right now... [note to R-T: hey! where is the /runtime EULA? ] ...alas I will have to wait till site maintainers deem the /runtime EULA should be public & navable-to-without-purchase ). If your clients will have customers then you are either back at #plan B or #C . You can always contact R-T if you want a custom arrangement. I did. summary: By the inclusion of this clause you are guided to use the /command binding and agreement to overcome classic client/customer relationship problems but are still able to develop and share stuff using the common /core if you can't afford the minimal /runtime fees. If you write a book and want rebol in it (core that is) as a CD on the back then this clause provides an avenue other than contacting [Dan--rebol--com] for a custom EULA for your book/CD. Frankly, I'd rather call/email Dan. He's a lot less disappointing than my lawyer. My lawyer says I read too much into my agreements. Your mileage may vary. ;# mailto: [bobr--dprc--net]

Hec Bob, your post was excelent! :-) Thanks, -pekr-

Unless you are a shark (Lawyer) in which case you get a meal out of it...

Ok, two BIG issues here. First, ask your lawyer about the legality of contracts you have no ability to view before agreeing to them (at which point most will say something along the lines of "not worth the paper its printed on") This is a big issue among software lawyers I know, and many companies that use the old "show the ELUA after purchase" installer are scared s******s that someone will actually use this as a legal challenge in court. Show it before you buy it (like the /core ELUA) and its a different matter.... provided point 2 isn't an issue: how many people have the download page bookmarked? I haven't had it for ages - I always go straight to platforms.html - completely bypassing the form and EULA, too much fiddling IMO. If RT want to make the /core EULA watertight then they should generate the download page from a cgi script send only after accept has been pressed. As it stands there is no way to prove that people who have downloded /core have even seen the EULA (I hadn't until I saw this message..)

Yeah, he would - that's supposed to be his job ;) We plebs are supposed to glance through long and messy legal documents and accept them with a sort of "brain-dead sheep to the slaughterhouse" mentality... No thanks, I've seen the sharks at work, I only go in the water in a metal cage.. ;) Chris -- New sig in the works Explorer2260 Designer and Coder http://www.starforge.co.uk