[REBOL] Re: clause 5
From: chris::starforge::demon::co::uk at: 26-Mar-2001 12:41
Bob Racko wrote:
> Lets start with visual aids. I envision EULA's are somewhat
> of a cross between a sponge and a sea urchin.
> Squeeze and either you get stabbed or
> trapped water dribbles everywhere.
Unless you are a shark (Lawyer) in which case you get a meal
out of it...
> ...alas I will have to wait till site
> maintainers deem the /runtime EULA
> should be public & navable-to-without-purchase ).
Ok, two BIG issues here. First, ask your lawyer about the
legality of contracts you have no ability to view before
agreeing to them (at which point most will say something
along the lines of "not worth the paper its printed on")
This is a big issue among software lawyers I know, and many
companies that use the old "show the ELUA after purchase"
installer are scared s******s that someone will actually use
this as a legal challenge in court. Show it before you buy
it (like the /core ELUA) and its a different matter....
provided point 2 isn't an issue: how many people
have the download page bookmarked? I haven't had it for
ages - I always go straight to platforms.html - completely
bypassing the form and EULA, too much fiddling IMO. If
RT want to make the /core EULA watertight then they should
generate the download page from a cgi script send only after
accept has been pressed. As it stands there is no way to
prove that people who have downloded /core have even
seen the EULA (I hadn't until I saw this message..)
> He's a lot less disappointing than my lawyer.
> My lawyer says I read too much into my agreements.
Yeah, he would - that's supposed to be his job ;) We
plebs are supposed to glance through long and messy
legal documents and accept them with a sort of "brain-dead
sheep to the slaughterhouse" mentality... No thanks,
I've seen the sharks at work, I only go in the water in
a metal cage.. ;)
Chris
--
New sig in the works
Explorer2260 Designer and Coder
http://www.starforge.co.uk
