FireFox 3 EULA
Steve Hill
steve at nexusuk.org
Tue Sep 16 09:23:10 UTC 2008
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008, Tim wrote:
> Some might call that a EULA, but I wouldn't. I'd call that more of a
> warning that you're about to use something that you *might* want to
> configure differently.
It isn't really a _software_ EULA, in that you don't need to agree to it
in order to use the software. I guess it is a _services_ EULA, but I'm
even more dubious about the legal validity of it than I am of
click-through licences since it basically makes acceptance implicit (even
if you never read it) which doesn't sound enforcable at all to me.
IANAL, but logically it seems that some kind of implicit agreement could
only be used to explain what sort of service you should expect from the
service provider (e.g. "we make no guarantees of the integrity of your
data - it's up to you to back it up", etc.) and couldn't be used to place
actual restrictions on what a user is allowed to do.
- Steve
xmpp:steve at nexusuk.org sip:steve at nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/
Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence
More information about the fedora-list
mailing list