Section 6 of the EULA states: "you must pass this disclaimer on whenever you distribute the Software or derivative works."

Section 7: "you must pass this limitation of liability on whenever you distribute the Software or derivative works."

If I'm going to create a derivative work of the Software, are you saying that:
(a) I must attach the same disclaimer and limitation of liability on the entire derivative work, or
(b) I must include notification of the disclaimer and limitation of liability on the original ApplicationEx software only (thus allowing me to provide some warranties, etc. for the derivative work), or
(c) Other?

Thanks!
3

Section 6 is our "as-is" clause. If you pass on a derivative work, all code you got from us and it's derivatives are still as-is. If your customer has a support issue, and it ends up being a problem in our code, we're not obligated to fix it.

Section 7 is our "hold harmless" clause. Basically if our code causes your app to cause your customer a problem (damage to equipment, personal injury or whatever), we're not liable in any way.

<u>You</u> may offer or guarantee your customers any additional protections or warranties as you see fit, however you cannot modify our waranty or obligations.

Basically these two clauses say that even though we try to do our best, there could be bugs in the code. If they are, and they casue a problem, then it's <u>your</u> fault for not testing the end product thoroughly, not ours.


Oh, and lastly, that's the EULA for all of our stuff, so it's not specific to the ApplicationEx classes as the topic title originally implied, so I've modified it slightly to avoid future confusion.

Two more questions:

(1) Section 8 states: "if you sue anyone over patents that you think may apply to the Software for a person's use of the Software, your license to the Software ends automatically."

Could you clarify what you mean by this? Is this limited to a scenario in which I'm suing a *user* of your Software for infringement of my patent? (like SCO suing Linux users based on its claim that IBM put Unix code into Linux)

Or, would my license also terminate if I found your Software, or derivatives of your Software, to be infringing on one of my patents?

(2) Section 12 states: "your rights under this License end automatically if you breach it in any way."

This seems to say that if a person makes any breach, no matter how minor, unintended or unknown, the license terminates. So, for example, if a licensee fails to include a copy of the EULA in one of its distributions, the licensee is suddenly operating without a license.

Any thoughts?

Thanks!
3

1. This is saying that if you sue someone of patents that apply to your code, then your fine. If you sue for infingement of patents involving our code then your license ends. Since our code is not patented, I doubt this will come up, but you never know.

2. You're reading this correctly. We tried to make the license simple - it fits on 1 page and is only 13 points - so we feel that compliance isn't too arduous. If you or your client needs a specific modified license, feel free to contact us.

As for your example, the EULA only needs to be distributed if you distribute our code in source form, not in binary/object form.

I'm also not sure if I am interpreting the EULA correctly.

I am developing an application that makes use of 3 of your SDF DLLs. When I distribute the application, we are planning to distribute these DLLs in object form. My understanding of Section 4 is that I should display a copyright notice in OpenNETCF.org's name along with our own copyright notice. What I am not sure about is what form this notice needs to take. Would "This software uses the Smart Device Framework Copyright 2003-2004 OpenNETCF.org" be sufficient?

We leave the form up to you, as we don't want to be restrictive and as soon as we place some seemingly benign guideline, someone will have a situation that it hinders. What you're proposing is just fine.

Our situation is similar to stevebamford, but my question is, is it mandatory to include a copyright notice like the one suggested by stevebamford or its optional as the clause 4(a) says "You will not use ....... or as mentioned in (b)..."

Thanks!

For SDF 1.x, yes, that is a requirement. SDF 2.0 will not have this requirement - we're actually easing restrictions further in the next version.

"...is it mandatory to include a copyright notice...?"
"SDF 2.0 will not have this requirement - we're actually easing restrictions further in the next version."

Is this currently in effect? That is, if I wish to redistribute part of the SDF 2.0b1 binaries now with my application, do I need to include a copyright notice? Not that I necessarily mind, I just want to be clear as to what my options are.

Thank you,
Ivan.

SDF 2.0 Betas are just that - betas. We don't recommend deploying them. We will be releasing SDF 2.0 this week, along with its new license. You won't need to include any copyright notice with it.