Home > Archive > MSDN > January 2006 > post-purchase EULA's
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
post-purchase EULA's
|
|
| Peter Oliphant 2006-01-26, 6:57 pm |
| Here is some good info on things like EULA's:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EULA
After reading this, I focused on something most of us are somewhat 'annoyed'
by, but still deal with. That is, conditions and rules which one only
becomes aware of during installation via a EULA which one must 'Accept' or
"Reject'. If one rejects one is suppose to return the software to the place
of purchase.
Problem is, most stores won't let you returned opened software, and you
can't get to the EULA without installing, which requires openning the
package. This is not fair, nor acceptable!
So, as far as >I'M< concerned, after-the-purchase EULA's are totally
unenforcable, since the purchase HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE. In other words, when
I purchased the product ALL conditions need to be available AT the point of
purchase and BEFORE one buys it. Anything else is loosely 'false
advertising'.
Alternatively, BY LAW all products with refusable EULA must be returnable to
the store purchased, and the store who sold it MUST accept the return BY LAW
(unless there has been unacceptable damage). Think stores will go for this?
Yeah right! So they pass the problem to the purchaser since the other two
parties involved (the manufacturer and the store) both have THEIR end of the
deal (the stores money goes to the manufacturer and the purchaser's money
goes to the store)...
Let's consider the flip of this. Would a software company or store tolerate,
after the purchase, a note on the check used to purchase it that the money
can't be used for certain purposes, with the option they can buy the product
back from the purchaser if they refuse? For example, the purchaser might be
an animal rights advocate and doesn't want 'his' money to be used to buy
food at Kentucky Fried Chicken. Should the purchaser be able to, AFTER the
purchase, impose such a limitation on the company that made the item he
purchased? Would the company consider this legally binding? Of course not!
So why should a purchaser consider additional conditions stated by a EULA
one can only read after openning the product (making it hard or impossible
to return) and AFTER the money has been spent, as legally binding?
Note that it is NOT acceptable that the customer send the product into the
manufacturing company for a refund, unless they are also willing to pay for
shipping, AND ADDITIONAL money for HANDLING (hey, they get away with
charging for 'handling', why not us?...hehe Personally, I'd pay in most
cases for products I buy to NOT be handled first...lol). After all, time and
effort likely went into deciding on this product, only to find it
unacceptable due to the EULA, possibly causing delays in production. Also,
purchasers have to acquire the product, which invloves travel (e.g. gas
money) or credit card service charges, etc. So if a customer has to send
back a product based on an unacceptable EULA, he has been 'damaged'
over-and-above the price of the product being returned. Hence, a 'handling'
charge is more than fair. So the price of requiring a EULA should be that
the company must be REQUIRED to take responsibility for damage caused the
purchaser for the product being ultimately unacceptable due to a
after-the-purchase EULA, and I doubt most companies would have EULA's if
this was a condition. That is, there are no checks-and-balances in these
situations...
It is time the end user no long suffers from being in the middle of this
problem. Customers need to know EXACTLY what they are buying BEFORE they buy
it. So, either all EULA's MUST be made available AT the point of purchase
BEFORE the purchase is made, with the understanding this is the ENTIRE
agreement, or stores must be REQUIRED BY LAW to accept openned software if
the customer comes back and says he refused the EULA, or EULA's need to be
totally abolished.
I prefer the later solution myself... : )
[==P==]
| |
| Jupiter Jones [MVP] 2006-01-26, 6:57 pm |
| Peter;
Microsoft products are returnable directly to Microsoft within 45 days
(North America):
http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/pro...fund/refund.asp
--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
http://www.dts-l.org
"Peter Oliphant" <poliphant@RoundTripInc.com> wrote in message
news:%23$q$dNsIGHA.2472@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Here is some good info on things like EULA's:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EULA
>
> After reading this, I focused on something most of us are somewhat
> 'annoyed' by, but still deal with. That is, conditions and rules which one
> only becomes aware of during installation via a EULA which one must
> 'Accept' or "Reject'. If one rejects one is suppose to return the software
> to the place of purchase.
>
> Problem is, most stores won't let you returned opened software, and you
> can't get to the EULA without installing, which requires openning the
> package. This is not fair, nor acceptable!
>
> So, as far as >I'M< concerned, after-the-purchase EULA's are totally
> unenforcable, since the purchase HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE. In other words,
> when I purchased the product ALL conditions need to be available AT the
> point of purchase and BEFORE one buys it. Anything else is loosely 'false
> advertising'.
>
> Alternatively, BY LAW all products with refusable EULA must be returnable
> to the store purchased, and the store who sold it MUST accept the return
> BY LAW (unless there has been unacceptable damage). Think stores will go
> for this? Yeah right! So they pass the problem to the purchaser since the
> other two parties involved (the manufacturer and the store) both have
> THEIR end of the deal (the stores money goes to the manufacturer and the
> purchaser's money goes to the store)...
>
> Let's consider the flip of this. Would a software company or store
> tolerate, after the purchase, a note on the check used to purchase it that
> the money can't be used for certain purposes, with the option they can buy
> the product back from the purchaser if they refuse? For example, the
> purchaser might be an animal rights advocate and doesn't want 'his' money
> to be used to buy food at Kentucky Fried Chicken. Should the purchaser be
> able to, AFTER the purchase, impose such a limitation on the company that
> made the item he purchased? Would the company consider this legally
> binding? Of course not! So why should a purchaser consider additional
> conditions stated by a EULA one can only read after openning the product
> (making it hard or impossible to return) and AFTER the money has been
> spent, as legally binding?
>
> Note that it is NOT acceptable that the customer send the product into the
> manufacturing company for a refund, unless they are also willing to pay
> for shipping, AND ADDITIONAL money for HANDLING (hey, they get away with
> charging for 'handling', why not us?...hehe Personally, I'd pay in most
> cases for products I buy to NOT be handled first...lol). After all, time
> and effort likely went into deciding on this product, only to find it
> unacceptable due to the EULA, possibly causing delays in production. Also,
> purchasers have to acquire the product, which invloves travel (e.g. gas
> money) or credit card service charges, etc. So if a customer has to send
> back a product based on an unacceptable EULA, he has been 'damaged'
> over-and-above the price of the product being returned. Hence, a
> 'handling' charge is more than fair. So the price of requiring a EULA
> should be that the company must be REQUIRED to take responsibility for
> damage caused the purchaser for the product being ultimately unacceptable
> due to a after-the-purchase EULA, and I doubt most companies would have
> EULA's if this was a condition. That is, there are no checks-and-balances
> in these situations...
>
> It is time the end user no long suffers from being in the middle of this
> problem. Customers need to know EXACTLY what they are buying BEFORE they
> buy it. So, either all EULA's MUST be made available AT the point of
> purchase BEFORE the purchase is made, with the understanding this is the
> ENTIRE agreement, or stores must be REQUIRED BY LAW to accept openned
> software if the customer comes back and says he refused the EULA, or
> EULA's need to be totally abolished.
>
> I prefer the later solution myself... : )
>
> [==P==]
>
>
| |
| Peter Oliphant 2006-01-26, 6:57 pm |
| Hi Jupiter,
> Peter;
> Microsoft products are returnable directly to Microsoft within 45 days
> (North America):
> http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/pro...fund/refund.asp
>
Does MS pay for the shipping and give you additional money for your
inconvenience when you return it to them? hehe
I discussed this in more detail in the paragraph of my initial post that
starts with:
"Note that it is NOT acceptable that the customer send the product into the
manufacturing company ..."
[==P==]
"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" <jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote in message
news:uheDTZsIGHA.3056@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Peter;
> Microsoft products are returnable directly to Microsoft within 45 days
> (North America):
> http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/pro...fund/refund.asp
>
> --
> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
> http://www.dts-l.org
>
>
> "Peter Oliphant" <poliphant@RoundTripInc.com> wrote in message
> news:%23$q$dNsIGHA.2472@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>
>
| |
| Jupiter Jones [MVP] 2006-01-26, 6:57 pm |
| Peter;
Why is it unacceptable that the customer have to send it to the company?
The idea you or I do not want to is irrelevant.
What law supports that idea?
If you are worried about shipping, then complain to the retailer that
refuses to accept the return.
In any case, it is normally up to the purchaser to return unwanted goods at
the purchasers time and expense regardless the product purchased.
At least I know of very few that will come to my location to pick up the
item thus saving shipping, getting to the retail location etc.
--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
http://www.dts-l.org
"Peter Oliphant" <poliphant@RoundTripInc.com> wrote in message
news:OOhhyfsIGHA.668@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...[color=darkred]
> Does MS pay for the shipping and give you additional money for your
> inconvenience when you return it to them? hehe
>
> I discussed this in more detail in the paragraph of my initial post that
> starts with:
>
> "Note that it is NOT acceptable that the customer send the product into
> the
> manufacturing company ..."
>
> [==P==]
>
> "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" <jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote in message
> news:uheDTZsIGHA.3056@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
| |
| Peter Oliphant 2006-01-26, 6:57 pm |
| >In any case, it is normally up to the purchaser to return unwanted goods at
>the purchasers time and expense regardless the product purchased.
Just because this is 'normal procedure' doesn't mean it's right! There are
laws against selling things (like homes and cars) without disclosing all the
conditions of the product and the purchase. Why do you think it's acceptable
to impose hidden and additional conditions on a product AFTER you've
purchased it, and AFTER you are REQUIRED to place the product to be in a
form the store won't allow you to return it (i.e., it's open?).
Consider this. What if you bought a car, and AFTER you purchased it you were
told the car didn't meet smog conditions in 10 states, so you are not
allowed to drive the car in those states. Does it sound acceptable to you
that the purchaser of the car be required to return the car to the
manufacture at his OWN expense?
Are you aware there are companies that sell picture viewing software that
have after-the-purchase EULA's that limit ehat you can view with 'their'
product (e.g., adult content)? I see no reason a company couldn't have in
their EULA that their picture viewing product could not be used for viewing
anything associated with their political agenda (e.g., anti-republican,
anti-meat eating, etc.). If you bought this product for the purpose of
viewing ANYTHING YOU wanted to, you would obviously reject the EULA.
Returning the product however will now mean you will be late on your work
project since you now need another picture viewing product AND you have to
take the time to send this one back to the manufacturer at YOUR expense,
both time and money. They got you to buy the product under false pretenses,
and might be counting on the fact that most people DON'T send stuff back
under any circumstances (this is what rebates are all about).
THIS is acceptable to you? That a product having a hidden condition which
caused you damage is a problem you should absorb all the fallout from? This
is taking caveat emptor to TOO FAR an extreme (the purchaser can only be
cautious if he knows ALL the conditions, otherwise he is being wronged)...
My point is that if a company imposes an after-the-purchase EULA that is NOT
accesible at the point-of-purchase that either the store be REQUIRED BY LAW
to accept it back (after all they sold it to you under false PREtenses), or
if this is not the case, the price for requiring such a EULA is to accept
FULL financial responsibility for the inconvenience it caused, and pay all
shipping charges plus some small damage amount.
Let me put it to you another way. Consider two private parties. Party A
sells something to Party B. A short time later Party A calls up Party B and
says, 'oh yeah, btw, I'm disallowing you for doing X with it". Does it seem
fair to you that Party B should be bound by such a statement, or that Party
B should have to bare the expenses of returning the item to Party A?
Or do you think big companies should not have to be bound by the same code
of ethics and standards humans are? Do you think companies should have such
advantages over the rest of us? Like, do you think it is fair if your don't
pay your bill on time they charge you a financial penalty, but if your
service is interrupted that you can't financially penalize THEM (i.e.,
charge them a fine)? Why do companies get away with this?
I speak here of revolution... : )
[==P==]
"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" <jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote in message
news:eTfXvlsIGHA.500@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Peter;
> Why is it unacceptable that the customer have to send it to the company?
> The idea you or I do not want to is irrelevant.
> What law supports that idea?
>
> If you are worried about shipping, then complain to the retailer that
> refuses to accept the return.
> In any case, it is normally up to the purchaser to return unwanted goods
> at the purchasers time and expense regardless the product purchased.
> At least I know of very few that will come to my location to pick up the
> item thus saving shipping, getting to the retail location etc.
>
> --
> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
> http://www.dts-l.org
>
>
> "Peter Oliphant" <poliphant@RoundTripInc.com> wrote in message
> news:OOhhyfsIGHA.668@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>
>
| |
| Jupiter Jones [MVP] 2006-01-26, 6:57 pm |
| Peter;
You have the choice of not purchasing any product with terms you do not
like.
I already exercise such rights and inform the seller why a sale was lost as
appropriate.
Hopefully you do as well.
You spent more time typing than it takes to simply return what is not
wanted.
What you or I think or feel is irrelevant.
The laws you have failed to cite are very relevant.
Your complaints have little to do with Microsoft and more to do with wider
consumer laws.
Hopefully you are actively pursuing this in a more appropriate forum rather
than this newsgroup specific to MSDN.
And since this is a MSDN newsgroup, this subject is clearly off topic here.
Since you are referring to non Microsoft products and services in your post,
that takes this even more off topic.
You clearly have complaints much broader than your initial subject
suggested.
It seems you are only using this as an excuse to advance your off topic
agenda.
Please take it to an appropriate forum.
--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
http://www.dts-l.org
"Peter Oliphant" <poliphant@RoundTripInc.com> wrote in message
news:OVztD6sIGHA.3144@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>
> Just because this is 'normal procedure' doesn't mean it's right! There are
> laws against selling things (like homes and cars) without disclosing all
> the conditions of the product and the purchase. Why do you think it's
> acceptable to impose hidden and additional conditions on a product AFTER
> you've purchased it, and AFTER you are REQUIRED to place the product to
> be in a form the store won't allow you to return it (i.e., it's open?).
>
SNIPPED a lot, mostly irrelevant to spread the agenda.
| |
| Michael Tissington 2006-01-27, 3:55 am |
| Actually I think its is approriate to talk about this here. True the OP
talks in very broad terms. However we have to start some place. And asking
Microsoft to FULLY disclosue their EULA outside of the shrinkwrap and
without us suffering a lose in order to return the product is not an
unreasonable thing.
--
Michael Tissington
http://www.oaklodge.com
http://www.sqlview.net
| |
| Jupiter Jones [MVP] 2006-01-27, 3:55 am |
| Michael;
This is an MSDN newsgroup.
This subject does not fit here.
MSDN is not mentioned or even hinted at except in my post where I point out
the subject is off topic here.
The MSDN EULA is freely available online so it is not even in the same group
as most other EULAs.
By your reasoning, almost anything could be discussed here.
--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
http://www.dts-l.org
"Michael Tissington" <mtissington@newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
news:O5earTwIGHA.1676@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Actually I think its is approriate to talk about this here. True the OP
> talks in very broad terms. However we have to start some place. And asking
> Microsoft to FULLY disclosue their EULA outside of the shrinkwrap and
> without us suffering a lose in order to return the product is not an
> unreasonable thing.
>
> --
> Michael Tissington
> http://www.oaklodge.com
> http://www.sqlview.net
| |
| Lawrence Groves 2006-01-27, 3:55 am |
|
"Peter Oliphant" <poliphant@RoundTripInc.com> wrote in message
news:OVztD6sIGHA.3144@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
....SNIP...
Did anyone ever tell you that life wasn't fair?
Loz.
| |
| Michael Tissington 2006-01-27, 6:56 pm |
| True, but there are LOTS of people who post here when there is not another
more specific Microsoft group. And a lot of Microsoft software products that
I can by in my local shop have the EULA inside.
Change has to start some place, people have to start speaking out and
standing up for what they beleive to be their rights
Unfortuantley judging by the lack of interest shown in this thread most
people could not care less.
--
Michael Tissington
http://www.oaklodge.com
http://www.sqlview.net
"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" <jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote in message
news:uIv7McwIGHA.1288@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Michael;
> This is an MSDN newsgroup.
> This subject does not fit here.
> MSDN is not mentioned or even hinted at except in my post where I point
> out the subject is off topic here.
> The MSDN EULA is freely available online so it is not even in the same
> group as most other EULAs.
> By your reasoning, almost anything could be discussed here.
>
> --
> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
> http://www.dts-l.org
>
>
> "Michael Tissington" <mtissington@newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
> news:O5earTwIGHA.1676@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>
>
| |
| Jupiter Jones [MVP] 2006-01-27, 6:56 pm |
| Michael;
The "lack of interest" is at least partially because this is the wrong
place.
"Change has to start some place" but that does not mean anywhere.
There are plenty of better places and probably less worse places for this
topic.
--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
http://www.dts-l.org
"Michael Tissington" <mtissington@newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
news:eYIjSw2IGHA.3452@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> True, but there are LOTS of people who post here when there is not another
> more specific Microsoft group. And a lot of Microsoft software products
> that I can by in my local shop have the EULA inside.
>
> Change has to start some place, people have to start speaking out and
> standing up for what they beleive to be their rights
>
> Unfortuantley judging by the lack of interest shown in this thread most
> people could not care less.
>
> --
> Michael Tissington
> http://www.oaklodge.com
> http://www.sqlview.net
| |
| Lawrence Garvin 2006-01-27, 6:56 pm |
| Within the confines of the law on adhesion contracts.. the EULA -must- be
publicly available outside of the purchase of the product.
If the terms are not available prior to the 'consent' to the terms, then
under the laws of adhesion contracts, the contract will be interpreted by
the courts =liberally= in favor of the purchaser (one who had the adhesion
contract imposed upon them).
This is a discussion that I engaged in in several legal forums back in the
early 1990s, and not much has changed since then.
Beyond my point here, my suggestion is to s out a qualified Intellectual
Property attorney, and have a discussion with them about your rights,
privileges, expectations, and liabilities when required to accept a
shrinkwrap license.
"Michael Tissington" <mtissington@newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
news:O5earTwIGHA.1676@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Actually I think its is approriate to talk about this here. True the OP
> talks in very broad terms. However we have to start some place. And asking
> Microsoft to FULLY disclosue their EULA outside of the shrinkwrap and
> without us suffering a lose in order to return the product is not an
> unreasonable thing.
>
> --
> Michael Tissington
> http://www.oaklodge.com
> http://www.sqlview.net
>
>
| |
| Peter Oliphant 2006-01-27, 6:56 pm |
| I've been discussing MS EULA's, but didn't name them specifically since the
idea applies more generally. I didn't say MS specifically so that it didn't
strike a emotional nerve, and could be discussed more logically than
emotionally. In fact, I've having no problems with any EULA's personally at
this time, but would prefer to talk about this when I'm NOT emotionally
charged, so I started this thread. Do you have to actually HAVE the problem
to discuss it in a 'general' forum, or is it ok to discuss problems BEFORE
they happen?
Why do some people get kinda weird about appropriateness of posting in a
particular newsgroup? Sure, if you posted about politics here or religeon,
yeah, inappropriate. But talking about EULA's? Come on! That is VERY
appropriate when it comes to MSDN and as a 'general' topic. There is some
irony in the idea that you must feel I'm doing something wrong to post this
here, yet you don't find it wrong that a person could buy an MS product not
knowing ALL the conditions before buying it. Which do you think cause the
most harm?
It really sounds to me like you don't have a good answer so you'd prefer it
not be discussed. It is appropriate since MS has a EULA for all their
products of the type I mentioned. If you don't think so, then, you've made
your point that YOU don't think it is appropraite. Time for YOU to move on
(and let those who wish to still discuss it do so)...
I guess next time I'll try to be more 'in topic' by attacking MS
specifically on the subject. Then it IS appropriate, right? If that the
approach that is desired and acceptable, I'm sorry, I'll be more vindictive
in the future... lol
And WHAT forum do you suggest I post this in, anyway? Since I guess
'general' isn't appropriate, there must be a specific one more appropriate.
Tell me the name of THAT newsgroup and I'll move this discussion there. If
there is no such newsgroup, then this IS the appropriate place. Do I have to
point you to the OTHER threads about EULA's in this newsgroup to justify?
[==P==]
"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" <jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote in message
news:uhK6C$2IGHA.648@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Michael;
> The "lack of interest" is at least partially because this is the wrong
> place.
> "Change has to start some place" but that does not mean anywhere.
> There are plenty of better places and probably less worse places for this
> topic.
>
> --
> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
> http://www.dts-l.org
>
>
> "Michael Tissington" <mtissington@newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
> news:eYIjSw2IGHA.3452@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>
>
| |
| Jupiter Jones [MVP] 2006-01-28, 3:55 am |
| If you have a problem with a specific EULA, post in a forum for the specific
product.
For you to pick on the MSDN newsgroup, the one where the EULA is most
public, is clearly off topic.
If it is EULAs in general, a Microsoft newsgroup is probably not appropriate
since EULAs apply to a wide variety of software.
A "general" newsgroup may be appropriate, but as I suggested above, for the
specific product.
This is not just a "general" newsgroup, but it is a MSDN newsgroup.
If you have a problem with the MSDN EULA, this may be the place, but you
seem to have problems with other EULAs and not MSDN.
Have you consulted with a qualified Intellectual Property attorney as
Lawrence suggested?
So far all you express is opinion with no facts, the attorney can help you
with the facts.
--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
http://www.dts-l.org
"Peter Oliphant" <poliphant@RoundTripInc.com> wrote in message
news:ek6jGg5IGHA.2828@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> I've been discussing MS EULA's, but didn't name them specifically since
> the idea applies more generally. I didn't say MS specifically so that it
> didn't strike a emotional nerve, and could be discussed more logically
> than emotionally. In fact, I've having no problems with any EULA's
> personally at this time, but would prefer to talk about this when I'm NOT
> emotionally charged, so I started this thread. Do you have to actually
> HAVE the problem to discuss it in a 'general' forum, or is it ok to
> discuss problems BEFORE they happen?
>
> Why do some people get kinda weird about appropriateness of posting in a
> particular newsgroup? Sure, if you posted about politics here or religeon,
> yeah, inappropriate. But talking about EULA's? Come on! That is VERY
> appropriate when it comes to MSDN and as a 'general' topic. There is some
> irony in the idea that you must feel I'm doing something wrong to post
> this here, yet you don't find it wrong that a person could buy an MS
> product not knowing ALL the conditions before buying it. Which do you
> think cause the most harm?
>
> It really sounds to me like you don't have a good answer so you'd prefer
> it not be discussed. It is appropriate since MS has a EULA for all their
> products of the type I mentioned. If you don't think so, then, you've made
> your point that YOU don't think it is appropraite. Time for YOU to move on
> (and let those who wish to still discuss it do so)...
>
> I guess next time I'll try to be more 'in topic' by attacking MS
> specifically on the subject. Then it IS appropriate, right? If that the
> approach that is desired and acceptable, I'm sorry, I'll be more
> vindictive in the future... lol
>
> And WHAT forum do you suggest I post this in, anyway? Since I guess
> 'general' isn't appropriate, there must be a specific one more
> appropriate. Tell me the name of THAT newsgroup and I'll move this
> discussion there. If there is no such newsgroup, then this IS the
> appropriate place. Do I have to point you to the OTHER threads about
> EULA's in this newsgroup to justify?
>
> [==P==]
|
|
|
|
|