[Full-Disclosure] Yes, user education is a lost cause ;-)
itsecurity at mq.edu.au
Thu Jan 22 05:26:13 GMT 2004
> Unless of course you are like me and I am sure many on this list and
> purchased the software through a bundle from a manufacturer and have
> never used it, unpacked it, accepted the license...
> In this case the license agreement does not apply and some remediation
> should be possible because you have paid for "defective" software.
True; I forgot about the prebundling process - In a former role we had
to drop a vendor because he refused to ship a computer without
Windows costed into it (even though we were building a non-Windows
Isn't the relationship still with Microsoft, only via their "agent"? IANAL2;
thought presumably its condition to the terms with your supplier, in that
> As another angle, the license agreement in these bundles is inside the
> bundle and by breaking the seal you "agree" to the terms of the license
> without having the chance to read the license.
> I recall reading about an Egghead case similar to this only focused on a
> store return policy and the position that if the package was opened the
> software could not be returned, even if defective...
I remember Microsoft getting into trouble over one of the Win98 distro's
(an OEM ver?) that had a red tag that said something in the order of
"in breaking this seal, you agree to the license agreement on the
disc" - referring to the software that booted off the media; something
that couldn't be read from the packaging without breaking the seal.
Hmm can't find it .. maybe I am wrong .. I can only find this reference;
http://nl.linux.org/geldterug/license.html to an article that has moved
regarding a Scottish court and Adobe. Yes, ok, it'll be in this lot;
That aside, point understood.
> IANAL but perhaps there is one out there that has not tuned out this
> thread that can comment.
IT Security Officer
Full-Disclosure is hosted and sponsored by Secunia.