Ira Abramov wrote:
Quoting Shachar Shemesh, from the post of Tue, 09 Nov:Run this by me again, will you? What you are saying is that you can turn any deal where I give you money and you give me something into a contract? Without showing me the contract? AND without getting my signature?
If you did not agree to the liecnse then you have no right to distribute it (as in "selling").I'm not distributing. I'm selling. I'm not making any copys, and therefor copyright law doesn't apply to me.
well, the EULA clearly states that you are NOT allowed to transfer the
license. If you claim you are not transfering the license but only
selling the rights to it (what's the difference?) MS will very easely
prove in a court of law, probably in any coutry, that since you bought
the license you now own it, since a sale is basicly an agreement ("I
pay you money to own the goods listed") and therefore by paying for the
MS license you have already agreed to it (seal broken or not) and
therfore, as said before, can't sell it to anyone.
I'm sorry, the case I know is exactly the reverse. The person did click the EULA, and the judge said that "if it looks like a sell, money exchanges hands as if it's a sell, it's stocked like merchandise, then it's a sell, not a contract". It appears that, at the very least, the case is not as open and shut as you make it sound.
All of this applies before you come to the point of "uniform contracts" and "discriminating articles".
you are all welcome to ask your prespective favorite lawyers. This isAre you saying one of the sides in a deal can unilaterally define what constitutes a binding action?
the little I know from a "contracts 101" course I once took at IDC.
Shachar
-- Shachar Shemesh Lingnu Open Source Consulting ltd. http://www.lingnu.com/
================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
