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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 10ad19,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid10ad19,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1073c2,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid1073c2,public X-Google-Thread: 10a146,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid10a146,public X-Google-Thread: 107a89,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid107a89,public X-Google-Thread: 101deb,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid101deb,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-06-12 08:30:28 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!nntp-relay.ihug.net!ihug.co.nz!newsfeed.germany.net!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!lnewspeer00.lnd.ops.eu.uu.net!emea.uu.net!zur.uu.net!ash.uu.net!magnum.mmm.com!not-for-mail From: damercer@mmm.com (Dan Mercer) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.awk,comp.lang.clarion,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.lang.pl1,comp.lang.vrml Subject: Re: Long names are doom ? Date: 12 Jun 2001 15:01:26 GMT Organization: 3M Company Message-ID: <9g5as6$hbq$1@magnum.mmm.com> References: <9f8b7b$h0e$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9f8r0i$lu3$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9fgagu$6ae$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9fjgha$blf$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <35mqhtkdfma2rggv1htcaq6vfn2ihs67a1@4ax.com> <9fli1b$4aa$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9folnd$1t8$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3B1FE1FE.B49AE27F@noaa.gov> <9fotpi$4k6$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3b24dc21$1@news.tce.com> <3B25D5FB.15C9B240@dresdner-bank.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 169.10.129.70 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Newsreader: knews 1.0b.0 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:8611 comp.lang.awk:3007 comp.lang.clarion:21750 comp.lang.java.programmer:75632 comp.lang.pl1:980 comp.lang.vrml:3729 Date: 2001-06-12T15:01:26+00:00 List-Id: In article <3B25D5FB.15C9B240@dresdner-bank.com>, James Kanze writes: > Dale King wrote: > >> Unfortunately, a software lawsuit would have little ground to stand >> on. Imagine if McDonald's required all customers who order hot >> coffee to sign an agreement before they are given the coffee where >> they acknowledge that the coffee is hot and can cause burns and that >> the customer assumes all responsibility for the proper handling of >> the coffee. If you got burnt from the coffee would you be able to >> win a suit agains McDonald's? Not likely, since you agreed to accept >> the responsibility. > > Did you sign such an agreement when you bought your software? The agreement is part of the installation process. You can't install the software unless you agree to the license terms. This constitutes a legal "acceptance". -- Dan Mercer damercer@mmm.com > >> Read most software license agreements and you'll find that most are >> like my hypothetical coffee agreement. Here is a sample from an IBM >> license agreement: "IBM does not warrant uninterrupted or error-free >> operation of the Program or that we will correct all Program >> defects. You are responsible for the results obtained from the use >> of the Program." And since "IBM WILL LICENSE THE PROGRAM TO YOU ONLY >> IF YOU FIRST ACCEPT THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT. " then you don't >> really have a legal leg to stand on. They even have clauses limiting >> their liability. > > Can you read this agreement before purchasing? If you aren't in > agreement, can you get a refund? > > A license agreement is a contract. It only exists if both parties are > in agreement. IBM (or MS, or whoever) can say whatever they want, but > they cannot hold you to it unless you actively agree as well. What > they are doing is about the same as if I added words at the bottom of > my posting, stating that the information within it is licensed, and by > reading the posting, you agree to pay me a consulting fee. > > I don't know what the situation is in America, but I'm pretty sure > having read of a case here in Europe where such "licenses" were held > to be non-binding, because they lacked the informed agreement of one > of the parties. >