n 06/05/2006 18:01, Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
> http://linuxadvocate.org/articles.php?p=1
>
> Among the terms (legal-speak on left, brevity on the right):
>
> ,----[ Snippters ]
> | You agree that at any time, and at the request of "content
> providers" | (eg. media giants such as Sony and BMG), Microsoft may
> disable certain | features on your computer, such as the ability to
> play your music or | movie files. | | [...]
> `----
>
> If you think it's bad, have a look in the site. There are /plenty/
> more.
"Prior to the transfer, the end user receiving the Software must agree
to all the EULA terms.", or IOW " ... *you* are responsible for making
sure the buyer agrees to all rules in this EULA."
Bollocks.
Surely that cannot be legally binding?
How can *I* be held legally responsible for a third party accepting a
second party's licence?
If I sold someone a kitchen knife, would I be legally responsible if
they used it to commit murder, just because I forgot to ask them to
promise they wouldn't kill anyone with it?
Rubbish.
--
K.
/* values of ß will give rise to dom! */
Fedora Core release 4 (Stentz) on sky, running kernel 2.6.16-1.2107_FC4
01:47:51 up 2 days, 35 min, 2 users, load average: 0.00, 0.02, 0.01
|
|
