Just wondering, other than the length, big words and legalese, what specifically was objectionable in the license agreement?
I didn't read far enough to get to anything more objectionable than the language itself!
I was set up for a laugh by the heading of the non-capitalised text, "WITNESSETH". It's not in either of my dictionaries, and www.dictionary.com has no entries. Good fun, but it leads to some interesting questions. If a legal document contains a made-up word without definition can it have a legal meaning? If an agreement contains words so archaic that the reader can't reasonably be expected to be sure of their meaning is the agreement valid? If an agreement is written in English is it binding on a person who agrees by clicking even if they can't read English?
Anyway, back to work...
-- Michael J. Lew
Senior Lecturer Department of Pharmacology The University of Melbourne Parkville 3010 Victoria Australia
Phone +613 8344 8304
** New email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
