On 09/04/2012 11:44 PM, Luis Villa wrote:
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Richard Fontana
<fontana(a)sharpeleven.org> wrote:
> On 08/05/2012 08:29 PM, Luis Villa wrote:
> [re an earlier patch submitted by Bradley that used the term
> "know-how" undefined in the Corresponding Source definition]:
>
>> I dislike "know-how" because it is insanely vague. Much better to list
>> the things (like configuration files) that might contain such
>> know-how.
>
> My own reaction had been that in my experience "know-how" was
> typically a defined term in commercial agreements. However, I'm just
> noting here that in the past day I've seen two different agreements
> (essentially contracts of adhesion) in which "know-how" was used
> undefined.
NDAs, I assume? It's fairly common there. "Make the license more like
an NDA" is not the strongest drafting advice I've ever heard, though
;)
Oh, I wasn't thinking of NDAs but I suppose you're right, it's common
there too.
- RF