Maintenance contracts that bite

[Edward Wigg]

Reading last week's InfoWorld I came across an interesting piece about 
L-Soft, the company that distributes the ListServ mailing list program. 
We have had discussions here in the past about their product and their 
spirited defense of their trademark; well it seems that they use their 
lawyers for other purposes as well.

At least one version of their maintenance contract has a 90 day 
cancellation clause, with an automatic full year renewal if proper 
notice is not given before the end of the contract; the two provisions 
working together but being listed in separate sections of the contract 
and no special notice is drawn to the fact of their existence (they 
billed for the new year _after_ the 90 day limit, so even the bill was 
not a reminder). L-Soft refused to settle for anything less than the 
full year's maintenance.

Now, while seemingly harsh, this was a signed contract, so L-Soft was 
within its rights even if standard practice is somewhat different. I'm 
just not sure that most libraries are in a position to have a lawyer vet 
_every_ contract that closely, especially as it would need to include 
shrinkwrap contracts for vendors in a UCITA state (L-soft is indeed in 
such a state). As software providers move more and more from one time 
licensing to a subscription model for all the commercial software we 
use, we are going to have to not only read such licenses more carefully 
but also more often.

I have no particular ill feeling towards L-Soft, people speak highly of 
their product and they may well be less aggressive about this sort of 
thing than some vendors. But I get the definite sense that between both 
software vendors and content providers flexing their muscles  libraries 
are going to get squeezed a lot harder in the coming years.

You can read the full story at 
<http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/02/11/11/021111opgripe.xml>.

Edward