|
|
|
|
|
|
by sqeaky
3319 days ago
|
|
|
I am not a lawyer, but I don't think "Shrink-wrap License" is legal term. I am pretty sure contracts are valid regardless of the amount of copying and pasting used to make them. "Post-purchase agreements" are not enforceable in many jurisdictions because they add terms that one side of the agreement did not agree to and many terms of service fall into the post purchase agreement category. It is hard to argue that open source licenses are "post-purchase agreement" because no purchase occurred. |
|
|
“shrink-wrap license” is a term (that has been used in legal writing on the subject, though it doesn't originate as legal jargon) for a license agreement included within the packaging (which historically was I usually shrink-wrapped, preventing the a customer from reviewing the license text prior a to purchase) of software product that is purported to be a condition of use of the software and which purports to be accepted by use, opening the package, or purchasing the product.
(“Click-wrap” has similarly been used for similar licenses included electronically with software that purports to be accepted by clicking through something in the install process.)
> It is hard to argue that open source licenses are "post-purchase agreement" because no purchase occurred.
Purchase may or may not occur with open source licenses; it may be true that it rarely occurs, though the FSF continues to promote sale of Free software as a viable thing.