Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!ukc!slxsys!ibmpcug!mantis!mathew
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (CNEWS MUST DIE!)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.acorn
Subject: Re: Shrink wrap licences Re: c.b.a posting: CLIB 3.66 - NOT PD !
Message-ID: <2F9k24w164w@mantis.co.uk>
Date: 7 May 91 17:44:00 GMT
References: <1991May3.115921.3066@cl.cam.ac.uk>
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.
Lines: 39

nbvs@cl.cam.ac.uk (Nicko van Someren) writes:
> In article <6802@acorn.co.uk> aglover@acorn.co.uk (Alan Glover) writes:
> >If you use this posting, you are considered to have entered into the end
> >user licence agreement listed below.....
[...]
> Talking to various lawyers here in appears that shrink wrap licences 
> ARE NOT BINDING in this country.  That is to say licences which say 'If you 
> break this seal then you agree to this licence' have no legal weight at all
> in the U.K.

This is my understanding as well.

>             Of course you are still not allowed to break the copyright laws
> which govern the software but any restrictions placed on the software above
> and beyond the copyright are null and void.

In this case, you could argue that there is an implied permission to copy the
files via the usual Usenet means; however, there is no permission to
distribute the files via PD libraries, by giving copies to your friends, and
so on, unless the posting disclaims copyright.

I think the disclaimer of liability is pretty redundant too; as I understand
it, one cannot disclaim _all_ liability except in a written contract, and
even then there are restrictions. And if you don't disclaim liability, there
are restrictions on what you _can_ be held liable for.

So to summarize, the shrinkwrap license probably isn't at all binding, and it
probably doesn't matter from our point of view or Acorn's. :-)

>                                            Note that this is not the case
> in the U.S.A.

It varies by state.


mathew
[ Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer either. ]