Comments on: Disavowal http://blog.excastle.com/2004/09/15/disavowal/ Life, .NET, and Cats Sun, 12 Oct 2008 08:00:49 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: Joe White’s Blog » Blog Archive » ReSharper beta license: it’s Diamondback all over again http://blog.excastle.com/2004/09/15/disavowal/#comment-19579 Joe White’s Blog » Blog Archive » ReSharper beta license: it’s Diamondback all over again Sat, 31 May 2008 21:46:37 +0000 http://blog.excastle.com/2004/09/15/disavowal/#comment-19579 [...] in Visual Studio 2008. Then I read their license agreement, and it’s just as bad as the public embarrassment that was the Delphi 2005 beta license. You’d think someone posting a public beta would want advance publicity and grassroots buzz, [...] […] in Visual Studio 2008. Then I read their license agreement, and it’s just as bad as the public embarrassment that was the Delphi 2005 beta license. You’d think someone posting a public beta would want advance publicity and grassroots buzz, […]

]]> By: Joe White's Blog http://blog.excastle.com/2004/09/15/disavowal/#comment-4268 Joe White's Blog Fri, 11 Nov 2005 02:50:00 +0000 http://blog.excastle.com/2004/09/15/disavowal/#comment-4268 <strong>So is disavowal going to become an annual ritual?</strong> So is disavowal going to become an annual ritual?

]]> By: Joe White's Blog http://blog.excastle.com/2004/09/15/disavowal/#comment-4267 Joe White's Blog Sat, 25 Sep 2004 00:39:00 +0000 http://blog.excastle.com/2004/09/15/disavowal/#comment-4267 <strong>Disavowal disavowal (annotated)</strong> Disavowal disavowal (annotated)

]]> By: Joe White http://blog.excastle.com/2004/09/15/disavowal/#comment-4266 Joe White Sat, 18 Sep 2004 23:08:00 +0000 http://blog.excastle.com/2004/09/15/disavowal/#comment-4266 No: according to the license, you're specifically *not* allowed to talk about anything that's in the conference preview. Clause 6 of its license agreement is pretty cut-and-dried about that, right in its first two sentences. (It's not clear whether the license can really extend to keeping you quiet about what was in the conference sessions, but you could make a pretty strong case saying you're voluntarily agreeing to do just that.) Here's the full clause 6: <br> <br>6. CONFIDENTIALITY. You acknowledge that the Product including its existence and features, and related information remains a confidential trade secret of Borland. You agree to hold this information in confidence, not disclose it to any person, and not use it for any purpose other than the use and operation of the Product as permitted under this License. If you are an entity, you may disclose Products only to your employees who have a need to know in order to accomplish the purposes identified in Section 2.1 and if you have written nondisclosure or confidentiality agreements with your employees sufficient to enable you to comply with the terms of this License. All such use by your employees shall take place solely at your site. No: according to the license, you’re specifically *not* allowed to talk about anything that’s in the conference preview. Clause 6 of its license agreement is pretty cut-and-dried about that, right in its first two sentences. (It’s not clear whether the license can really extend to keeping you quiet about what was in the conference sessions, but you could make a pretty strong case saying you’re voluntarily agreeing to do just that.) Here’s the full clause 6:

6. CONFIDENTIALITY. You acknowledge that the Product including its existence and features, and related information remains a confidential trade secret of Borland. You agree to hold this information in confidence, not disclose it to any person, and not use it for any purpose other than the use and operation of the Product as permitted under this License. If you are an entity, you may disclose Products only to your employees who have a need to know in order to accomplish the purposes identified in Section 2.1 and if you have written nondisclosure or confidentiality agreements with your employees sufficient to enable you to comply with the terms of this License. All such use by your employees shall take place solely at your site.

]]> By: Jim Cooper http://blog.excastle.com/2004/09/15/disavowal/#comment-4265 Jim Cooper Sat, 18 Sep 2004 14:20:00 +0000 http://blog.excastle.com/2004/09/15/disavowal/#comment-4265 There was a bit of "confusion" (being generous) about the licence. You're allowed to talk about anything you saw at the conference (at least, the public sessions), and anything that's in the preview you got at the conference. Later beta releases are still subject to NDA. There was a bit of "confusion" (being generous) about the licence. You’re allowed to talk about anything you saw at the conference (at least, the public sessions), and anything that’s in the preview you got at the conference. Later beta releases are still subject to NDA.

]]> By: Derek Davidson http://blog.excastle.com/2004/09/15/disavowal/#comment-4264 Derek Davidson Thu, 16 Sep 2004 14:00:00 +0000 http://blog.excastle.com/2004/09/15/disavowal/#comment-4264 Good FREAKIN' heavens. I've enjoyed not reading your blogs on that non-existent topic, Joe. <br> <br>:-) <br> <br>Sshhh. You ain't seen me. Right?! Good FREAKIN’ heavens. I’ve enjoyed not reading your blogs on that non-existent topic, Joe.

:-)

Sshhh. You ain’t seen me. Right?!

]]> By: Iman http://blog.excastle.com/2004/09/15/disavowal/#comment-4263 Iman Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:07:00 +0000 http://blog.excastle.com/2004/09/15/disavowal/#comment-4263 freakin lawyers freakin lawyers

]]> By: Kristofer Skaug http://blog.excastle.com/2004/09/15/disavowal/#comment-4262 Kristofer Skaug Wed, 15 Sep 2004 19:46:00 +0000 http://blog.excastle.com/2004/09/15/disavowal/#comment-4262 LOL!!!! LOL!!!!

]]>