From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,faf964ea4531e6af
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 1025b4,43ae7f61992b3213
X-Google-Attributes: gid1025b4,public
From: hawk@eyry.econ.iastate.edu (Richard E. Hawkins Esq.)
Subject: Re: GPL and "free" software
Date: 1999/05/05
Message-ID: <7gpq45$7po$1@eyry.econ>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 474364491
References: <7fibd5$jc7$1@news2.tor.accglobal.net>
 <925171876snz@vision25.demon.co.uk>
 <m2ogkae2db.fsf@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
 <7g4ncj$vme$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
Organization: House of Hawkins
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,gnu.misc.discuss
Date: 1999-05-05T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <7g4ncj$vme$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
Robert Dewar  <robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>In article
><m2ogkae2db.fsf@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de
>> Of course, traditional shrink-wrapped licenses have to
>> include a phrase where you may return the unused software
>> if you do not agree with the license.

>I do not know of any such requirement. I quickly checked
>and it is not in the Illinois statute as far as I can see,
>to which shrink-wrapped statute are you referring. It does
>not appear to be in the federal statute either.

You will not find the overwhelming majority of contract law in 
any statutes; it is heavily common law.  As a practical matter,
if there is no such condition clear before the shrinkwrap is
cracked, the purported license terms would not attach.

rick, esq.
-- 
These opinions will not be those of ISU until it pays my retainer.