i have been pushing my current employer to use csla in our business applications. we are an independent software vendor with essentially a configurable workflow runtime. we want to use csla as part of a windows forms application used to configure that runtime.
this is the response that i get from my employer after sending the license agreement to the law people.
"At minimum, we would have to update our license agreements and put disclaimers on it that include the CSLA declaimers. This acceptance process won’t be short."
am i missing something here. CSLA was written for exactly this purpose wasn't it. i am not going to pretend i have read the license agreement nor do i want to, i just want to get my work done.
would my employer really need to do this?
thanks,
steve
steveb:
"At minimum, we would have to update our license agreements and put disclaimers on it that include the CSLA declaimers. This acceptance process won’t be short."am i missing something here. CSLA was written for exactly this purpose wasn't it. i am not going to pretend i have read the license agreement nor do i want to, i just want to get my work done.
would my employer really need to do this?
That's just ridiculous.
Lawyers.
We sell commercial software and did nothing special at all about CSLA. To us it is just another component in our software which we happen to get to use free of charge by Rocky.
Since we are not selling a framework we did not violate Rocky's wide open license agreement.
I doubt you are either.
Good luck getting the lawyers out of the way though. Once they are in, they will want to make a ruling (and charge a fee).
Joe
today i was told the csla license agreement as is will not be satisfactory and i cannot use csla without a custom one from rocky o_O
this is actually the second employer in a row that i have pitched csla at and only been turned down because the license agreement was sent to the lawyers and deemed unsatisfactory.
c'est la vie ... i guess.
The CSLA.NET license agreement is very similar to that of Enterprise Library:
Does your legal department have a similar qualm with EntLib?
~pete
Steve,
Well, that's not fun at all. Rocky's intent seems clear, but I'm no lawyer either.
I don't know if you have the details, but if you do, I'd be curious to what the attorneys object about. That is, what about the license agreement don't they like?
I'm only asking because I'm curious about the objections/details, if you have them. If you don't, or can't share, that's cool. No worries.
Regards,
Mike
no qualms with Ent Lib, that has shipped in our products.
my n00b understanding is it has to do with a couple of things. first and formost was patent infringement liability. something about my employer, not rocky, would have to take legal responsibility if in the future somone claimed that csla infringed on their patent.
second, and this is the reason the other employer said no as well, is concerns about Intellectual Property rights. i dont really know any more details on that.
if you are interested in hearing what some larger corporations have to say about all this rocky let me know, i could probably get a more formal description for you on a private channel.
for now i will just take what i have learned about OOA/D while studying CSLA and be grateful i have a book i can refer others to when they would like to learn about it as well
steveb:
my n00b understanding is it has to do with a couple of things. first and formost was patent infringement liability. something about my employer, not rocky, would have to take legal responsibility if in the future somone claimed that csla infringed on their patent.
second, and this is the reason the other employer said no as well, is concerns about Intellectual Property rights. i dont really know any more details on that.
Copyright (c) Marimer LLC