Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!cbnewsc!dalenber
From: dalenber@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (Russel Dalenberg)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Paying for Shareware (Was: Re: v09i070: newsclip 1.1...)
Message-ID: <13520@cbnewsc.ATT.COM>
Date: 13 Feb 90 00:40:20 GMT
References: <1237@utoday.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, Illinois
Lines: 34

In article <1237@utoday.UUCP>, greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes:
> In article <14108@s.ms.uky.edu> sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes:

>>I don't like being told that I'm bound by a contract that I never signed.
>>Opening a shrink wrap or downloading software proably does not constitute
>>a valid agreement. For almost anything like that to be legal, it requires
>>a signature or at least some overt paperwork with the author (as in checking
>>"yes" on a subscription offer).
> 
> Balderdash, Sean.  Whethr you like it or not, you are bound by certain laws:
> try selling copies of Lotus 123.  Give those folks up at Cambridge adequate
> notice.  You'll be sued forcopyright infringment.  And you never signed
> anything.  Tell it to the judge.

Ross, as you said in article <1235@utoday.UUCP>:
< Don't confuse the right to copy with the license to use.

No one ever said that the copyright was invalid because no contract was
signed. But without my signature, I am not bound to the terms of any
software license. If I were to buy a copy of Lotus 123, I would have no
rights to make copies to sell, or even to give away. But it is perfectly
within my rights to sell *my* copy of Lotus 123 *even if the license
forbids it*.

What if your new car came with an automatic "this isn't really yours, you
can't sell it" statement on the front seat. Would you consider that valid?


Russel Dalenberg

att!ihlpb!dalenber
dalenber@ihlpb.att.com

Disclaimer: These are my opinions, not AT&T's