Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!bellcore!faline!ulysses!sfmag!sfsup!shap
From: shap@sfsup.UUCP (J.S.Shapiro)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.misc
Subject: Re: Guidelines on legal protection for shareware & freeware
Summary: Sharware Licensing Status Question
Message-ID: <2731@sfsup.UUCP>
Date: 31 Jan 88 01:11:55 GMT
References: <6784@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Organization: AT&T-IS, Summit N.J. USA
Lines: 12

It seems to me that I recall several lawyers batting out
the meaning of a shareware license on the net, and that the
status of such a thing is dubious at best. The essence of
the counterclaim is that a license requires a signatory,
and in the case of stuff that goes out over the net, there
is nothing analogous to a signature or a shrink-wrap seal
which can be construed as an acceptance of the license by
the licensee.

Has the status of this changed?

Jon Shapiro