Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uflorida!haven!rutgers!att!twitch!hoqax!twb
From: twb@hoqax.UUCP (T.W. Beattie)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: Shareware liscenses
Message-ID: <2232@hoqax.UUCP>
Date: 27 Mar 89 14:59:44 GMT
References: <2214@hoqax.UUCP> <54799@yale-celray.yale.UUCP>
Reply-To: twb@hoqax.UUCP (T.W. Beattie)
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel, NJ
Lines: 36

In article <54799@yale-celray.yale.UUCP> spolsky-joel@CS.YALE.EDU (Joel Spolsky) writes:
>In article <2214@hoqax.UUCP> twb@hoqax.UUCP (T.W. Beattie) writes:
<<
<<The discussion of shareware liscense agreements seems to assume that people
<<actually read the request for payment frequently buried in a file somewhere.
<<I don't see how these requests can be considered legally binding since there
<<is no way to insure that a person has even seen them.
<
<Absolutely false. Just because you didn't read the request to pay
<doesn't mean you don't _have_ to pay. If you go into a barber shop and
<sit down, and get your hair cut, you can't complain that you "never
<read" the sign with the prices posted, you are certainly obligated to
<pay.
<
<	"In the absence of a contrary statute, acceptance of goods
<	or services by a person who did not request them is an 
<	expression of assent to contract if that person knew
<	or reasonably should have known that the goods or services
<	were offered with the expectation of compensation".
<	(Chem-Teonix Laboratories, Inc., v. Solocast Company, 5 Conn.
<	Cir. 533, 258 A.2d 110 (1968)).


I have no idea if the above citation has any bearing at all on shareware.
However, it says in part:
	"knew or reasonably should have known that the goods or services
	were offered with the expectation of compensation"

This is my point.
Without reading some document how do you know it isn't FREE.

Why search for a request for payment?
---
Tom Beattie
att!hoqaa!twb
t.w.beattie@att.com