lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <400F4FD3.2030300@brvenik.com> From: security at brvenik.com (Jason) Subject: Yes, user education is a lost cause ;-) > > However, I suspect that the License Agreements that we (Microsoft > customers) have all agreed to, will help resolve any grey (gray) areas > that may be of concern. > 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. 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... IANAL but perhaps there is one out there that has not tuned out this thread that can comment.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists