On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Emmanuel Seyman wrote: > On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 03:52:50PM +0800, hkcc1976 wrote: > > > > I presume here everyone use and love Linux and does NOT like MS's monoply. > > I once run across a tech coloumn, saying that the lability clause in EULA > > may have some legal problem. > > It isn't the only one, apparently. > http://news.com.com/2100-1001-983988.html
IANAL, but as i understand it, in the US at least (land of the lawsuit), it's illegal, once a agreement has been struck, to arbitrarily introduce more conditions or restrictions to that agreement unilaterally. consider buying a shrink-wrapped box of software. i can take the box off the shelf, inspect it closely, read the front, back, sides -- and based on *just* what i see there, i should be prepared to make a decision to purchase or not purchase that product. i am not allowed, in the store, to open the box and read further legal requirements or conditions. so it seems reasonable to suggest that the instant i purchase that product, i and *someone* (the store? the manufacturer?) have entered into an agreement. however, when i get home and open the box, only *then* do i see the actual contractual terms by way of a EULA. but this comes after the purchase. in what way can it be binding on me anymore? as i said, IANAL, and this seems like *such* a no-brainer, judgment against concealed, shrink-wrapped licenses. but i've seen the way the U.S. justice system works. good luck. rday -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=unsubscribe https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
