From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 11:42:15 +0800
To: Andrew Loewenstern <andrew_loewenstern@il.us.swissbank.com>
Subject: Re: An alternative to remailer shutdowns
In-Reply-To: <9605212257.AA00853@ch1d157nwk>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.93.960522174826.15860F-100000@polaris.mindport.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Tue, 21 May 1996, Andrew Loewenstern wrote:

> Ben Holiday <ncognito@gate.net> writes:
> >  As far as I can tell an agreement of this form would be at
> >  least as valid as the software licenses ("NOTICE: Opening this
> >  envelope constitutes your agreement to the terms.. blah blah
> >  blah") that are commonly used today.
> 
> IANAL, but I have one, and he said (a couple of years ago) that these  
> shrinkwrap contracts are practically worthless without a signature.  At least  
> this was how things were being handled in some districts.  Anyone care to  
> comment?

I concur.

> 
> crypto relevance:  Can RSADSI __really__ enforce the silly "thou shalt not  
> call certain functions" restrictions in their 'license'?  I doubt it, but I  
> would love for someone to prove me wrong.

This is closer.  You're asked to accept the terms of the license or return
the product.  It's a stronger issue and more likely to be upheld.

> 
> andrew
> 

---
My preferred and soon to be permanent e-mail address:unicorn@schloss.li
"In fact, had Bancroft not existed,       potestas scientiae in usu est
Franklin might have had to invent him."    in nihilum nil posse reverti
00B9289C28DC0E55  E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information
Opp. Counsel: For all your expert testimony needs: jimbell@pacifier.com