(Continued from previous message)


DB> There is a world of difference between a foreign case being
DB> persuasive, and that same case being referred to as a "test case"
DB> under the Australian jurisdiction;  those two things are *not* the
DB> same.

Thats supposed to be news to me is it Dave ? Thats why I used the specific
words that I did use in that para.

RS> That then involves just what is 'accepts' in the situation we
RS> are talking about. Still not as cut and dried as you are attempting
RS> to suggest.

DB> I was not attempting to suggest that it was "cut and dried";

RS> You were in fact suggesting that the conditions were binding.

DB> I was in fact saying that in some circumstances, yes the conditions
DB> *are* binding;

Bullshit Dave, you actually said
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PE> Now since the compiler just translates C into object code, there
PE> are absolutely no restrictions on using this tool.  ie the object
PE> code is yours to do with what you will.

DB> Assuming this is part of the license for using the compiler, yes
DB> (which it is for most compilers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
which is pretty explicitly suggesting that there is indeed a license
in force. Show me where it says 'in some circumstances'

Its far from clear that there actually is, particularly on a condition
which doesnt make sense like purporting to be able to tell you what you
can do with object code created by a particular compiler.

RS> You could have said the same thing about the ticket, the
RS> conditions are on the back, they claimed that you basically
RS> agree to those conditions.

DB> You get the ticket at the conclusion of the transaction, that's
DB> why the conditions on the back are irrelevant.  If the conditions
DB> were viewable prior to the sale, then that would be different.

RS> Nope. If a parking station has a sign up denying all responsibility
RS> for the safety of your car while its in the parking station, even if
RS> you cant miss that on entry to the parking station, still doesnt let
RS> the owners off the hook.

DB> Rod, I'm not saying all the clauses in the contract are enforceable -

You were attempting to suggest that the well known problem with
conditions on a ticket not being enforceable was due to those only being
visible too late. In fact there are plenty of examples where conditions
arent enforceable even when seen early enough.

DB> merely that if they are available prior to the transaction taking
DB> place, then there is an arguement that can be fought in court (that
DB> may or may not be won, depending on the clause), which differs from
DB> an instance where the conditions are introduced post-transaction,
DB> wherein the matter would (should) be resolved fairly quickly;  THAT
DB> is the difference - the *possibility* of enforcement, versus the
DB> *lack* thereof.

Its just waffle Dave. In practice all we have is a wealth of examples
of conditions which purport to be a contract conditions which are no
such thing and are completely useless and are not binding at all.

You havent provided a shred of evidence that if a particular compiler
producer chose to attempt to bind a user of his compiler to conditions
on what could be done with object code produced by that compiler, that
they actually could.

In fact, as Paul pointed out, its utterly fanciful to suggest that they
could for example impose conditions on that compiler only being used for
one hour a day. You could just ignore that requirement with impunity.
Just like you could if they purported to require you to make you first
born work for them for award wages for 5 years if you dared to produce
an EXE for a competitors OS. You could tell them to FOAD and they
wouldnt stand a chance of doing a damned thing about it.

--- PQWK202