[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: vogons vs turlettes
- Subject: Re: vogons vs turlettes
- From: LumiTech <lumitech@concentric.net>
- Date: 2000/07/24
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
- Organization: Road Runner
- References: <vsJe5.11137$89.2958948@typhoon-news1.southeast.rr.com> <200007240615.CAA23058@anon.cotse.com> <YBWe5.14725$89.3471726@typhoon-news1.southeast.rr.com>
- User-agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022
> Waste of paper or not,
> it is still a valid contract. Maybe even more so, I didn't want to mention
> it without something to cite, but I'll be damned if it doesn't seem like
> DCMA or another one gave EULA's a big dose of credibility.
I don't believe that a "Shrink-wrap" license is a valid contract. I'm nearly
positive of that. To be a valid contract, there must be signatures involved
=OR= a "provable" verbal agreement.
The "Shrink-wrap" licenses are only enforcable to the point that Federal law
allows. Anybody can put what ever they want in writing and insert it into
whatever it is they're selling, but only the Federally recognized portions
of that writing can, or will, be upheld in court.
> I'll look it up, if you are interested.
I am. Would you please?