Subject: Re: Fiduciary limitations
From: Brian Bartholomew <>
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 11:11:40 -0500

Whoops, let me do a better job of stating what I want:

	I don't want legislation.

	I do want education.

	I do want contracts, ones that constrain the company's
	approach to profit-seeking.

	I do want the contracts to be enforceable.

Imagine a company is trying to sell you some software, and they want
to convince you they aren't going to bonk you with a big rock after
you're locked in.  What contract or business organization can they
offer as a sales pitch that constrains them from bonking you?

Turnbull writes:
> I don't think vendor-customer contracts address what Brian is
> concerned about.  Brian wants to extend the guarantee that GPL gives
> that non-copyright holders can't add proprietary extensions to a
> work to copyright holders.  That you cannot contract, I think,
> except by basically assigning the copyright to the customer or to a
> third party.

Or even, that their work can be proprietary, but they will only 
pursue a certain amount of income from it in certain ways.

As a software customer, the future of the software I use is very
important to me.  However, vendors' record of delivery on their
promises of future openness is like Lucy and the football.  What
assurances can vendors give that are stronger than "trust me"?

A member of the League for Programming Freedom (LPF)
Brian Bartholomew - - - Working Version, Cambridge, MA