ANSI/ISO Compliance

[Robert Dewar]

> 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.

OK, so that actually is much more liberal than you had suggested, and means that
if the FSF was a licensee, for sure it could state the level of compliance with
the Plum Hall suite. For anyone else to do it is subject to difficult interpretation.
The above is written with normal proprietary software in mind, so the phrase
"its own software" is not as clear as it might be :-)

One thing to remember about contracts is that they are written to protect interests.
There is nothing that stops you from breaking a contract, such an action merely
creates the possibility of claiming damages. But it is not damage *per se* to
break a contract, the injured party would have to show that there was actual
damage from the breach to claim damages. That's what I meant when I objected
to someone saying that the contract meant that something was not allowed :-)