Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!lll-winken!uunet!yale!spolsky-joel
From: spolsky-joel@CS.YALE.EDU (Joel Spolsky)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: Shareware liscenses
Message-ID: <55127@yale-celray.yale.UUCP>
Date: 29 Mar 89 07:30:47 GMT
References: <2214@hoqax.UUCP> <54799@yale-celray.yale.UUCP> <2232@hoqax.UUCP>
Sender: root@yale.UUCP
Reply-To: spolsky-joel@CS.YALE.EDU (Joel Spolsky)
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept, New Haven CT  06520-2158
Lines: 60

In article <2232@hoqax.UUCP> you write:
>In article <54799@yale-celray.yale.UUCP> spolsky-joel@CS.YALE.EDU
(Joel Spolsky) (thats me) 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.

tanstaafl.

>
>Why search for a request for payment?

REASONABLY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN.

If the goods have value, then US courts WILL assume that you are
clever enough to understand that under the Capitalist System you will
have to pay. This applies to all kinds of things. Indeed it is almost
impossible to actually _give something away_ legally, which is why
many things given away are actually officially sold for $1. You can't
pretend you 'didn't see' the request for payment because you know as
well as I do that it will be plastered all over the screen regularly.
But even if you honestly don't see it, maybe your screen was in Kanji
mode or something, as a non-half wit you should be able to figure out
that pending evidence to the contrary, goods with value WILL require
compensation.


Now would somebody PLEASE fix the spelling on the Subject: line
+----------------+----------------------------------------------------------+
|  Joel Spolsky  | bitnet: spolsky@yalecs.bitnet     uucp: ...!yale!spolsky |
|                | internet: spolsky@cs.yale.edu     voicenet: 203-436-1483 |
+----------------+----------------------------------------------------------+
                                                      #include <disclaimer.h>