Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 21st Sep 2009 08:44 UTC, submitted by Cytor
Permalink for comment 385193
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-05-12
Later one-sided changes to a contract only are lawful, if the either the not-changing party benifits from this change, or if a change of laws demands this change.
I don't know how things are "in your country", but in general in the law around the world that is not true. In
most jurisdictions there is the legal concept of implicit agreement or implicit contract. If there wasn't, as I said in my comment above, things like software licenses would be completely void.
Well, I agree that may use the OS-X CD as Software CDs usually are expected to be used: Install it, and use it, on one computer.
Even if we overlook the fact that you are not buying a CD but rather a license to use the software, and the CD is just a convenient medium thrown in the package, there is no inherent "[way software] usually [is] expected to be used". A good example for that is a volume license, say a "family pack", with which you also receive one CD, but you are given the permission to install the software and use it on up to a certain number of machines. And the thing that makes a "family pack" a "family pack" is the exact same software license, as detailed in the respective license agreement, that you say is bunk.