[Cryptech Core] draft template document

[Leif Johansson]

> 15 jun 2014 kl. 09:38 skrev "Joachim Strömbergson" <joachim at secworks.se>:
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
> 
> Aloha!
> 
> Leif Johansson wrote:
>> If we wanted the contract to say what Joachim believes it sais it 
>> would have been spelled out along the lines of "hardware must never 
>> be covered by the project". It doesn't say that.
> 
> And that is where the problem lies.
> 
> Right now we have spent a lot of time getting the contract finished and
> I'm not here to add more delay. I will not make this a bigger hurdle,
> but we both know that I will be agreeing to a para that we both know is
> not correct.
> 
> I've been a consultant for the better part of 15 years and have signed
> numerous contracts with clauses like 2.2. When something like this is in
> the contracts it means that the other party is worried about something
> (expenses usually, just like this case) and something I have to respect
> and adhere to. But normally a clause like this is in line with the
> purpose of, and how the project will operate. In this case we both know
> that it is not the case. We WILL be buying stuff and as 2.2 stands it
> will be the contractors that have to pay for that.

Ok I agree you have a pont there.


> 
>> Adding "unless agreed to by both parties" everywhere just adds 
>> redundancy to the contract.
>> 
>> You can *always* add to a contract by agreeing to an exception. That 
>> is a basic fact of contract law and doesn't have to be spelled out 
>> everywhere.
> 
> Yes you can. But then you do that by putting it in writing. At least if
> the contractor does not want to risk being at the wrong end of an
> unexpected loss. If push comes to shove, and you are dealing with
> lawyers, what you signed your name to agree on is what is the truth and
> what you must abide.
> 
> My humble suggestion: Either remove 2.2 since it is not aligned with the
> project, or add a similar exception as for travel expenses. And if you
> think the exception for travel expenses is redudant you can axe that one
> too. But if this takes up extra time lets just move on, ok?
> 

Ok! You have a good argument... 

> (The good thing having this one @core is that now there is a trail where
> you Leif have stated the Nordunet lawyers have said that this is really
> a no issue even though it is not in line with the actual wording in the
> contract.)

I don't think there is an issue with that actually - everybody at that end fully understands that ndn will pay the bills I ok and thats that.


> 
> Now I'll stop and go back to AES and entropy stuff.
> 
> - -- 
> Med vänlig hälsning, Yours
> 
> Joachim Strömbergson - Alltid i harmonisk svängning.
> ========================================================================
> Joachim Strömbergson          Secworks AB          joachim at secworks.se
> ========================================================================
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)
> Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
> 
> iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJTnU1pAAoJEF3cfFQkIuyNKVUQAKPx6UiaYKLlY71EMeM3QbEu
> SkhwZ0wlf7evaOltv78qkK4i7w5cEg2IWSw58Zn/i0jXm3iodK1HRa6d2RACQxOw
> AV4Sh5DlKNLeLCG31L6bdBHDfQ1JS4FEZvpz8narwUXn17ReA/QMUCLcLGW6GnKB
> 2DFLKPdZQbXC4w6qfMgJznYjmAaFYaMesnMabEdSDVlRwnHIdLR/iYuTXBd0u4EM
> h73yPErCEQLSu5rCvWnX4/mjVPs/e5MWTGHYo+KNzGgC+dQvLJzMD5c4uyVWa0Ua
> vgOxqJ0WwnSoQ0bnyIBx6bL6f7YWxj7Q6q7NsYyq4DUqIFDLikLEphtQkLVBt8Up
> dubMezBRQDwxaWKgt/DX3vYd2jRoaT7cFPXRjkd+s0SxwzlgVzuY2sImF2pdc9ov
> uSQouq3EbTC2aYSVfj//byAXyB9qknugQ3dEEIfuK9a3RWovXJbKVQFje+m5R3/1
> W/XSNL1IQrMwftyECjRR0nJSRW9nz8tZbld7V7JBqUFFsDQTwfy1hEsfwguuYVMt
> OQDeNK5H8A2KfwtW3GbOxkmfrEUdGRSznc8Yc3tbIvT7tsmOV2CI2NHPa9pm7Vfx
> kELdiYbImN9FHHmhbuvqR7h+BFaAaAjKqoLB/jux3xSayLOq+NhssyRy3S6BGt2b
> NtNMQiXKc0B8gdD+A7YM
> =22uG
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----