[WikiEN-l] Slashdot: Book plagarized Wikipedia

[Anthony]

On Nov 15, 2007 4:52 AM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Arguing that you have not read the contract does not absolve you of its
> terms.

Really?  That seems strange.  A contract requires a [[meeting of the
minds]].  How can you have a meeting of the minds if one of the
parties doesn't even know what she's agreed to?

You don't have to read every word, but surely one must understand the
basic concept of what she's agreeing to in order to have a valid
contract.  Isn't that why so many contracts make you initial
individual key paragraphs?

> With many licences simply availing oneself of their benefits
> includes an implicit agreement with the terms of the licence.  This can
> be the case with shrinkwraped licences where if you break the seal, you
> agree to the licence.
>
AFAIK that POV has never held up in court.  AFAIK the only time
something remotely close has held up was when a purchase was made
directly from the manufacturer, and no seal was ever broken.  The
theory was that the contract was formed *at the time of sale*, and not
at the time the software was taken out of any shrinkwrap.

Whenever I get software with a shrinkwrapped license I always cut the
back of the envelope and leave the seal intact.  Does this mean I'm
less bound by the contract than someone who "breaks the seal"?

I'm afraid you're going to need another citation for this claim about
shrinkwrapped licenses.  "The legal status of shrink wrap contracts in
the US is somewhat unclear."  [[Shrink wrap contract]] doesn't mention
anything about non-US jurisdictions.