On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 09:58, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > 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),
**SNIP** > 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 In the same way that Robert is not a Lawyer, neither am I, but I have always been led to believe that the M$ EULA is not a binding contract in Europe because you must be able to see the terms BEFORE making the purchase. On a side note, the following website is reasonably good, and although it does mention the lockin with EULA's it makes a jolly good read anyway http://www.kmfms.com/whatsbad.htm Be Well -- Alan & Jan Harding Tel: 07715 539272 "Unchain the Hot Petunia" -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=unsubscribe https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
