On Tue, 6 Mar 2007, Tom Lane wrote: > "Craig A. James" <cjames@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > Bill Moran wrote: > >> I have no idea if that's legally binding or not, but I've talked to a few > >> associates who have some experience in law, and they all argue that email > >> disclaimers probably aren't legally binding anyway -- so the result is > >> undefined. > > > No, it's not legally binding. Agreements are only binding if both > > parties agree, and someone sending you email has not consented to your > > statement. > > To take this back to the PG problem: it's probably true that we can > ignore disclaimers as far as receiving, redistributing, and archiving > mail list submissions goes. On the other hand, accepting a patch is > another matter. A published policy on patch submission making them fit whatever legal model is desired would avoid any and all legal issues related to legalease included with a submission. The would-be patcher's action of submission can also count as acknowledgement of the actual agreement - your agreement - if you've got the policy unambiguously and prominently displayed... HTH, RT -- Richard Troy, Chief Scientist Science Tools Corporation 510-924-1363 or 202-747-1263 rtroy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, http://ScienceTools.com/
