Re: FrameMaker License Issue

[Allen Schaaf <soundbyte@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 04:18 PM 5/31/02, Dan Emory wrote most elequently:

[snip]

>Action 1. It is always legal, even in a batch-oriented environment, to 
>command FrameMaker to take data produced by another application and save 
>the resulting data as a FrameMaker file.
>
>Action 2. Is it always legal, even in a batch-oriented environment, to 
>command FrameMaker to open FrameMaker files and output postscript or PDF.
>
>If there is an interval (no matter how short) between the end of Action 1 
>and the beginning of Action 2 during which FrameMaker is not operating in 
>a batch-oriented environment, then Actions 1 and 2, when performed 
>separately, are completely legal. Consequently, even if Adobe intended to 
>bar the combination of Actions 1 and 2 in a single batch-mode operation, 
>the separation of the two actions makes them completely legal, thus this 
>license restriction is completely toothless.

First of all Dan, are you sure you are a technical writer and not a lawyer?

Then, the purpose of the licence is not to make sense or be reasonable, but 
rather to provide work for lawyers, which it will most certainly do, except 
perhaps in India where there is no copyright law, I'm told.

I'm getting to old to spend much time on EULAs written to grab the sun, 
moon, and the stars.  I just hit return and pass on by, but I do enjoy your 
commentary on the absurdity of it all.  Thanks.


Allen Schaaf
Sr. Tech Writer
Fourelle Systems, Inc.

Who says bad manuals aren't a risk to your life?  Just ask the passengers 
of the jet where the engine caught fire because the company's maintenance 
manual was wrong about how to install one key bolt.  (NTSB Report on GE CF6 
engine fire, American Airlines flight 574, July 9, 1998. 
<http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/1999/AAB9903.htm>)


** To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@omsys.com **
** with "unsubscribe framers" (no quotes) in the body.   **