On Sep 16, 1994 at 20:29, Rod Speed of 3:711/934.2 wrote:

 DB>> Don't over-generalise, Rod;
 RS>
 RS> Dont preach Dave.

You thought *that* was *preaching*?!  Sheesh..

 RS> In fact its not true that there has been no testing whatever of the
 RS> 'shrinkwrap contract' stuff.

Please - cite precedent;  I most eagerly await your references to such test
cases, as they would prove most important and indeed useful.

 RS> And IMO if it was as cut and dried as you suggest, they would have taken
 RS> action. They havent, IMO because they know damned well what the result
 RS> would be.

So they continue wasting their own money on printing the crap?  Somehow I
don't think they are as convinced as you believe.

 DB>> Why not?  There's no seal involved, there is a legal copyright,
 RS>
 RS> Yes, but copyright aint licensing restrictions.

I'm not saying that it is;  I'm merely indicating that this stuff isn't
"in the realm of the public domain" (wherein licence restrictions
are a shere lunacy), therefore licence restrictions are not so
out-of-place.


    - dave
    david{at}cagney.nepean.uws.edu.au

---