brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu (05/25/90)
Certainly once you've received a copy of the software, you're not bound by any after-the-fact licenses. Shrink-wrap licenses are simply invalid. In this case, the license appears to grant most normal ownership rights explicitly, so it's rather useless and its unenforceability is rather irrelevant. The only possible problem is #4, which pretends to restrict sale and sublicensing rights; I don't know why Stanford thinks it has that power, or what it gains from anything in that license. I don't know what's going to happen in Europe. If you can be bound by a license without agreeing to it, I'm scared for you. Followups to trial.misc.legal.software, which will become misc.legal.software if it gains enough readers. ---Dan
dhosek@sif.claremont.edu (Hosek, Donald A.) (05/25/90)
In article <13796:May2507:39:4090@stealth.acf.nyu.edu>, brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu writes... >Certainly once you've received a copy of the software, you're not bound >by any after-the-fact licenses. Shrink-wrap licenses are simply invalid. I missed the beginning of this thread (since it's not in a group that I read), but I'm really confused by what you're saying. What precisely do you mean by "shrink-wrap license"? Is this when license information is printed on a sealed package saying that by opening the package you agree to the terms of the license (a la Microsoft's products)? If this is the case, why would you consider this an after-the-fact license? How else would the vendor communicate the license agreement? Print it on the box? (which brings up the problem of purchasing through mail order). What about shareware packages whose license is contained in a file in the distribution or in the program itself. -dh --- Don Hosek "When I was younger, I would throw dhosek@ymir.claremont.edu spitballs at girls that I liked. Now, dhosek@ymir.bitnet I beg and plead for dates. Frankly, the uunet!jarthur!ymir old way was more satisfying."