Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   Amusing, But Wrong

   

   Dale Gardner, May 2nd, 2002 @ 5:39am

   
   

   I'm not sure where the Register gets its data that click-through license agreements are not enforceable. They might chat with a lawyer, but perhaps including some facts would spoil the fun. Don't get me wrong - licensing terms are often ridiculous (I was just reading something this morning about a Microsoft provision that would prevent the replacement of Windows on a machine with another OS...). But this sort of article isn't really helpful - how about some facts, rather than giggles?

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   Re: Amusing, But Wrong

   

   W klink, May 2nd, 2002 @ 6:25am

   
   

   A California District court (Adobe vs. Softman) did indeed rule that parts of EULA's are not enforceable in that the software was a sale and not a license.

   Note that what makes it a sale is that you go to the store, give them money, and they give you the box. Software that expires and needs new licenses every year is licensed rather than sold.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   Re: Amusing, But Wrong

   

   Dale Gardner, May 2nd, 2002 @ 6:50am

   
   

   Fair enough, but that's not what the article was about - the author of the script asserts that by getting rid of the license, you get rid of the terms. That's rarely the case as most license agreements contain provisions that restrict such behavior - you agree to be bound by the terms even if the actual click-through is bypassed.
   
   Licensing is very complex and there are a vairety of laws that apply - articles like this one don't really help anybody because the spread misinformation and simplistic views.
   
   BTW, I disagree with your last statement about the distinction between software that is licensed rather than sold. I believe you'll find that virtually all software is licensed. Expiration only comes into play with respect to the term of the license - which may be perpeptual.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   Re: Amusing, But Wrong

   

   IMNAL, May 2nd, 2002 @ 11:53pm

   
   

   You cannot enter into a contract with someone without a "consideration" (except in Japan where it is different). If you do not see the license then it seems to me highly likely that it is not binding in law. You cannot agree to something that you have not been given the opportunity to see.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   Re: Amusing, But Wrong

   

   Wklink (profile), May 3rd, 2002 @ 6:27am

   
   

   It's not *my* distinction, it was the court's. Almost all software *claims* to be licensed. Adobe was certainly claiming that their bundle was licensed. The court said it wasn't a license.
   
   They just did the standard "duck" test. It looks like a sale (you give money, they give you product), it acts like a sale (there is no on-going relationship after you give them your money), therefore it is a sale. If the software expired or needed to be renewed, then there would be an on-going relationship and, therefore, a license.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment