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

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

You can wait as eagerly as you like Dave. I was discussing the matter a
while ago in an international echo with a lawyer working in that field
in the US and didnt save any of that thread. You will just have to do
the research yourself if you want to chase it up.

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

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

Its called bluff Dave. People have been doing it for years say with
the signs you see in parking stations denying all liability until the
TPC started to crack down on trying the bluff the customers like that.
Ditto for purported denial of liability on tickets etc.

Ditto for the stuff in READMEs in shareware, tho in this case presumably
many actually think they have the law on their side when they dont.

DB>> Why not?  There's no seal involved, there is a legal copyright,

RS> Yes, but copyright aint licensing restrictions.

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

Says SFA about whether what they purport to be license conditions are
actually legally binding on stuff like the object code stuff tho.

--- PQWK202