Author: Christopher A. Morgan
Date: 11:03:28 11/28/99
Go up one level in this thread
I was unaware that the actual license prohibited testing. Raises interesting legal points under US law, much more complicated I am sure under international law. If I were SSDF I'd probably avoid testing too, but would be sure to publicise that fact, and reasons for it, at every available opportunity. Its unfortunate that the mere threat of a law suit could stifle legitimate testing, but I fully understand why. On November 28, 1999 at 13:41:55, Dave Gomboc wrote: >On November 28, 1999 at 13:24:38, Christopher A. Morgan wrote: > >>No free speech in Sweden? Who cares whether author "prohibits" >>testing. The tester buys the program on open market and tests >>it and publishes results. Period. Does Consumer Reports say we >>couldn't test a product because manufacturer wouldn't let us? >>Sure, could be problems in the methodology of the tests resulting >>in bias towards a program, opening SSDF to potential law suit, >>but does anyone think that is even a remote possibility? > >If you would like to purchase the software and hardware, perform the testing, >and report the results, we'll be happy to listen to what you come up with. But >if you break the license agreement and end up in court, it's your own fault, and >problem. > >Not liking a licence doesn't give you the moral authority to break it. If you >don't like it, you shouldn't agree to it, so don't buy the program. > >Dave
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.