Re: FreeVeracity shipment.
- To: Yann Dirson <email@example.com>
- Cc: "Ross N. Williams" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, Richard Braakman <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: FreeVeracity shipment.
- From: Nick Moffitt <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 12:49:50 -0800
- Message-id: <20000105124950.L28136@zork.net>
- In-reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org>; from email@example.com on Wed, Jan 05, 2000 at 12:48:43AM +0100
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
Quoting Yann Dirson:
> * The sentence `You also indicate your acceptance by retaining the
> Module on your computer for more than one day.' may have strange
> interactions with the download of (eg.) a precompiled binary package
> from debian.org/.../non-free/ - the downloader may get a large bunch
> of software, and may not physically have the time to carefully read
> all the licences - if he only reads the licence 2 days later, even
> before ever thinking of running the program, does this mean he has
> implicitely accepted a licence he did not read ?
This is the same tactic the MICROS~1 Windows EULA takes: they
put the license inside the package and say "by opening the package,
you agree to..."
For more info, check out the old MS Windows Refund Day
Newsletter at http://zork.net/refund/ . I believe issue two has a
transcript of someone trying to read the license before she has
implicity agreed to it.
CrackMonkey.Org - Non-sequitur arguments and ad-hominem personal attacks
LinuxCabal.Org - Co-location facilities and meeting space