Xref: utzoo comp.sys.amiga:26978 comp.misc:4490
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!super!udel!rochester!uhura.cc.rochester.edu!sunybcs!bingvaxu!leah!itsgw!imagine!pawl17.pawl.rpi.edu!kudla
From: kudla@pawl17.pawl.rpi.edu (Robert J. Kudla)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga,comp.misc
Subject: Re: Software Development And Piracy (Spurred By FTL replies)
Message-ID: <2176@imagine.PAWL.RPI.EDU>
Date: 22 Dec 88 22:28:37 GMT
References: <3121@sugar.uu.net> <2854@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> <3127@sugar.uu.net> <125@iwtsf.ATT.COM>
Sender: news@imagine.PAWL.RPI.EDU
Reply-To: kudla@pawl17.pawl.rpi.edu (Robert J. Kudla)
Followup-To: comp.sys.amiga
Organization: RPI Public Access Workstation Lab - Troy, NY
Lines: 17

In article <125@iwtsf.ATT.COM> korz@iwtsf.ATT.COM (Korzonas) writes:
>(iterates your typical shrinkwrap license)
>Seems pretty clear-cut to me.  The thing that I believe makes people
Wrong..... Shrinkwrap licenses, as they're generally called, are not legally
binding (or at least, have never been proven to be in a U.S. court of law).
A shrinkwrap license is akin to printing a notice on a box of cheerios
to the effect that by opening this box of cheerios you forsake all legal
claims against General Mills Inc. and agree never to eat your Cheerios in
a manner inconsistent with the suggested serving; i.e. with milk. If shrink-
wrap licenses are binding, so would be that Cheerios license. Wouldn't you say?


   -----------Robert J. Kudla - Ex-Pseudo-Freshman Extraordinaire-----------
       //  Don't surround yourself         \             Itt@RPITSMTS.BITNET
   \\ //                with yourself....   \     USERFW3S%mts@itsgw.rpi.edu
    \X/                                    / \            kudla@pawl.rpi.edu
   -------------------------------------------------------------------------