Re: ANSI/ISO Compliance

[Michael LeBlanc <leblanc at skycomputers dot com>]

Joe Buck wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 01:25:09PM -0500, Robert Dewar wrote:
>
> > > In the case of the Plum Hall suite, if you don't buy it, no one that
> > > does buy it is allowed to tell you the answer.
> > More accurately you sign a contract to that effect. Please don't create the
> > impression that breaking a contract is a crime :-)
> This is exactly what I meant; nowhere did I use the word "crime".
Below is an excerpt from Plum Hall's current license.  My eyes glaze
over when I read stuff like this.  11.7 says to me that I can publish
results, but the burden of proof is mine.  If a customer buys my
compiler because of my claims of compliance, and he finds my claims
were somewhat inflated, he can sue me, but I can't turn around and
sue Plum Hall.  I think my interpretation is correct because I have
yet to find even one vendor who makes such a claim.

11.6 LICENSEE shall hold in confidence all results of using Suite++
LICENSED MATERIALS and shall not publish or provide such results to
others, without prior written approval of Plum Hall, except as provided
in paragraph 11.7.

11.7 LICENSEE may include in its advertising or other documentation any
true statement reflecting conformance of its own software to the unmodified
and most current Suite++ LICENSED MATERIALS and Plum Hall hereby grants to
LICENSEE a license to use the name "Plum Hall" in such advertising or other
documentation, provided however that any such use shall be true and accurate
and based on tests to verify compliance of its software with the unmodified
and most current Suite++ LICENSED MATERIALS, and that LICENSEE shall provide,
upon request of Plum Hall, detailed information documenting such statement
or claim. Any such advertising or other documentation shall state
that Suite++ is a trademark of Plum Hall.