That opens up a can of worms.
On 10/24/07, Dustin Puryear <dustin at puryear-it.com> wrote: > > So, I'm working through a contract with our lawyer and he sends this > comment back on one of the provisions: > > + 4.6 "Reseller shall deliver each Product with the > shrink wrap End User License Agreement provided by XXX. Each End User > Customer receiving Products packaged with such licenses shall be a XXX > licensee subject to the terms and conditions of such licenses." > > - Although one can agree to deliver a product with a shrink wrap > license agreement under Louisiana law such license agreement is not > enforceable. Therefore, if the End User Customer is Louisiana based, > neither XX nor your company would be able to enforce the provisions of a > shrink wrap license. For our company should not obligate itself to be > liable for its inability to enforce something that the courts have ruled > is not enforceable. It is recommended that Section 4.6 be deleted. > > Okay, the blah blah aside, so shrink-wrap licenses aren't even > enforceable here? Interesting. > > -- > Puryear Information Technology, LLC > Baton Rouge, LA * 225-706-8414 > http://www.puryear-it.com > > Author, "Best Practices for Managing Linux and UNIX Servers" > http://www.puryear-it.com/pubs/linux-unix-best-practices > > Identity Management, LDAP, and Linux Integration > > _______________________________________________ > General mailing list > General at brlug.net > http://mail.brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.brlug.net/pipermail/general_brlug.net/attachments/20071024/2ece1dba/attachment.html
