Is there anyone at Mosaic Communications that can speak
publically on this. I am asking this because "personal use"
isn't mentioned anywhere that I can see in the license.
The only "personal" reference is that the license can't be
transfered from one person to another. What you are saying is
reasonable, what marca is saying is reasonable, but it doesn't
match the license (which appears to be legally binding).
I am also curious about the distribution issues. If a sysadmin,
downloaded the netscape and placed it on an internal ftp
site for a company and then each person downloaded/installed
the software on their own system, is that appropriate?
As for option d being false all of the time, since the license
does state that the binary is available for evaluation and
trial purposes, d is true, at least some of the time.
Thanks for the input. I appreciate your help and the product
itself.
Mary
> My understanding and I am NOT speaking from an official positions is
> that it is free for "personal use". That would make A & B true,
> C true if it is a corporate policy decision, and d always false.
>
> A company which decides to use Netscape as the basis for a CWIS needs
> to get a licsense. However, _individuals_ within the organization can
> use it for free. With this in mind, my understanding of the distribution
> restrictions is to prevent one corporate Sysop from downloading a copy
> and installing it on 10,000 corporate PCs. This is no longer personal
> use. If each of those PC users downloaded their own copy that would
> be cool.
>
> Again, I'm sure that our lawyers will claim that I am oversimplifing
> the agreement but we are basically just trying to be fair. If people
> are just using Netscape to cruise the Web for fun we don't want anything.
> If a company uses Netscape as part of the corporate infrastructure
> than it is reasonable to expect them to pay for it. It is also basically
> inevitable because by paying for it they will receive the support that
> they are going to want if they are basing their CWIS on the product...
>
> AGAIN: This is simply my understanding of how the legalese translates
> into English. It isn't an official policy statement...