At 02:19 PM 7/5/00 -0500, selkovjr@mcs.anl.gov wrote:
>
>Jan Wieck wrote:
>
>> I'm in doubt why none of the other open source projects ever
>> felt the need to enforce license agreement in this way while
>> most commercial players do. Maybe it's something we don't
>> have to worry about, but what if so? What if we all have
>> already one foot in jail and just don't know?
>
>This is exactly the the kind of sentiment that the UCITA proponents
>sought to make as widespread as possible.
>
>> Oh boy, what
>> about all the patches, modules, whatnot I contributed to
>> other open source projects during the past 20 years? Can I
>> sleep well tonight?
>
>They thought about that, too. UCITA is designed to be applied
>retroactively, so you can sleep well knowing that there's nothing you
>can do to prevent the Maryland residents from suing you for the
>damages they suffered from your code over the last 20 years. Now if it
>is true that the UCITA was meant to be a weapon of intimidation, it
>seems to have started working: everybody is at least concerned, if not
>scared. But it definitely goes overboard with its retroactive
>capability, which actually makes it less intimidating: what's the use
>in worrying about the future if we all have one foot in jail because
>of our deeds in the past?
>
>Back to work, folks ...
>
>--Gene
>
not being from maryland but, i would think that the constitution's
prohibition against ex post facto laws would prevent retro-active
applications of laws, if the usa actually followed the constitution;
but that's another topic...
mikeo