| 1 |
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Alec Warner <antarus@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> That doesn't mean you didn't / cannot accept, merely that some (all?) |
| 3 |
> provisions are likely unenforceable in a court of law. I don't think |
| 4 |
> EULAs have been ruled illegal yet. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
I doubt that my proclamation that you aren't allowed to eat breakfast |
| 7 |
has been ruled illegal yet either. Fortunately that has no bearing on |
| 8 |
whether you need to listen to me. :) |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Oh, and I also proclaim that you accept my proclamation by choosing to |
| 11 |
eat your next meal. Fortunately in reality that has no bearing on |
| 12 |
whether you accept my agreement either. Just because a publisher says |
| 13 |
that the terms of a contract of adhesion are binding on you by virtue |
| 14 |
of your taking some action does not make it so. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Courts have ruled inconsistently on whether EULAs can be enforced. |
| 17 |
Then again, Missouri is one of those places where courts have ruled |
| 18 |
that software is not sold but licensed, and the Foundation is |
| 19 |
incorporated there (as well as in New Mexico). So, perhaps there is |
| 20 |
some element of risk here, though I'd have to read the court decisions |
| 21 |
to see whether the fact that the software is free impacts the |
| 22 |
enforcability of the EULA. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
That makes me wonder whether we should consider more carefully where |
| 25 |
we incorporate - if it makes us more subject to local jurisdiction it |
| 26 |
probably isn't a good idea to incorporate in multiple jurisdictions |
| 27 |
since it allows a potential plaintiff to venue shop. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Rich |
Archives