On Tue, 21 May 1996, Andrew Loewenstern wrote:
Ben Holiday <ncognito@gate.net> writes:
As far as I can tell an agreement of this form would be at least as valid as the software licenses ("NOTICE: Opening this envelope constitutes your agreement to the terms.. blah blah blah") that are commonly used today.
IANAL, but I have one, and he said (a couple of years ago) that these shrinkwrap contracts are practically worthless without a signature. At least this was how things were being handled in some districts. Anyone care to comment?
I concur.
crypto relevance: Can RSADSI __really__ enforce the silly "thou shalt not call certain functions" restrictions in their 'license'? I doubt it, but I would love for someone to prove me wrong.
This is closer. You're asked to accept the terms of the license or return the product. It's a stronger issue and more likely to be upheld.
andrew
--- My preferred and soon to be permanent e-mail address:unicorn@schloss.li "In fact, had Bancroft not existed, potestas scientiae in usu est Franklin might have had to invent him." in nihilum nil posse reverti 00B9289C28DC0E55 E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information Opp. Counsel: For all your expert testimony needs: jimbell@pacifier.com