Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 19th Feb 2006 16:26 UTC
This week, one of the most-commented stories on OSNews was the story about how 'Maxxus' cracked/hacked (take your pick) the Intel version of Apple's OSX once again. This sparked a lively debate over whether we should encourage Maxxus, or condemn his actions. I made myself clear from the get-go: I condemn his actions. Note: This is the Sunday Eve Column of the week.
Permalink for comment 97636
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:
2005-07-02
No... But before you use the program for the first time the EULA comes up. In addition, a number of programs come in a "sealed" package along side the EULA.
But if it doesn't, then what are you to do? And saying that other EULAs are "similar" has absolutely no legal meaning whatsoever. The only EULA that counts is the one for the software I just bought, and if I can't get a refund ater reading the EULA (which is usually the case with opened boxes) then there's good legal precedent to consider the EULA null and void.
I also don't subscribe to your "dog law" analogy, since we're talking about two very different things. The fact that a EULA might be more prevalent that signs saying "Dogs Forbidden" is irrelevant. (And, as a side note, you can often fight back - and nullify - parking tickets if the parking sign isn't clearly visible from where you parked.)
I haven't read it myself. But from my understanding, it makes EULAs valid in certain areas of the world.
Correction: it means that EULAs would be considered valid in certain American states. UCITA laws are american laws, and most state have not adopted them.