OT: Interface legality concerns

It's in limbo too, more or less. I think there have been court cases going both ways, declaring the shrink wrap licenses invalid or valid. A few states have passed explicit legislation (UCITA) to give shrinkwrap licenses more validity.

Some info on UCITA:

formatting link
Offices/ALA_Washington/Issues2/Copyright1/UCITA/UCITA_101.htm

As I understand it (IANAL!), many shrink wrap licenses don't even meet the requirements for a valid legal contract. I don't know if the licenses that have been declared invalid were declared invalid on that ground, or because they contained terms that wouldn't be enforceable even in an otherwise valid contract.

It might be worth the OP's time to post to misc.legal.computing or misc.int-property for more information. Hiring a lawyer might be smart too.

--
      Wim Lewis , Seattle, WA, USA. PGP keyID 27F772C1
Reply to
Wim Lewis
Loading thread data ...

formatting link

UCITA's in big trouble.

In the meanwhile, purchaser's ownership of "copy" and right of first sale seem to be alive and well.

It's just silly to think that a commercial "contract" that you did not sign could bind you to terms in the "contract", regardless of whether you can understand the terms, or if they're even legal.

Just for double-belt and suspenders, make sure a complete stranger opens and "agrees" to the terms of your software before using.

Reply to
Bryan Hackney

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.