From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Feb 7 17:51:06 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C516A16A4CE for ; Mon, 7 Feb 2005 17:51:06 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail.chrononomicon.com (chrononomicon.com [216.37.143.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7148C43D39 for ; Mon, 7 Feb 2005 17:51:06 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from bsilver@chrononomicon.com) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [192.168.0.42]) by mail.chrononomicon.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A045340C22 for ; Mon, 7 Feb 2005 12:51:02 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619.2) In-Reply-To: <1069313008.20050207173736@wanadoo.fr> References: <200502061420.24415.krinklyfig@spymac.com> <849739867.20050207170757@wanadoo.fr> <1069313008.20050207173736@wanadoo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Bart Silverstrim Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 12:51:01 -0500 To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619.2) Subject: Re: favor X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 17:51:06 -0000 On Feb 7, 2005, at 11:37 AM, Anthony Atkielski wrote: > Eric Kjeldergaard writes: > > EK> To see the collection of prior postings to the list, visit the > EK> freebsd-questions Archives. > EK> > EK> Since we are discussing implicit contracts, I would think that the > EK> announcement that the collection of prior postings is linked to and > EK> mentioned/described to be reasonable notification that the mailing > EK> list gets archived. > > It's not. And there must be no other way of subscribing in order for > this method to be valid, anyway. > > Why do you think that software companies and Web sites and other > organizations require you to check a box to accept terms and > conditions, > instead of just assuming that you read and understand them when they > are > displayed? You mean the boilerplate like the one for the CD I just recently installed telling me what I could run their program on, only to discover that their "program" was nothing but a bunch of PDF files hyperlinked by an index.html page? PLEASE. These companies don't even bother reading their own license agreements anymore. They get some generic thing drafted by their lawyer (or steal someone else's) and spew it into their packaged software to cover their butts. The one I read was definitely for an application of some kind, but the content on the CD was definitely NOT an application.