Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction
Path: news.duke.edu!newsgate.duke.edu!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!newsfeed.gamma.ru!Gamma.RU!peer.news.eu-x.com!server2.netnews.ja.net!hgmp.mrc.ac.uk!pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk!bath.ac.uk!unknown
From: "Ben A L Jemmett" <bal.jemmett@ukonline.co.uk>
Subject: Re: the ultimate IF archive
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
Sender: unknown@bj1084.resnet.bris.ac.uk (Address not verified)
Organization: Jemmett Glover Software Development
Lines: 56
Message-ID: <GqprCz.1up@bath.ac.uk>
X-Msmail-Priority: Normal
References: <3c5140ae.1475140@news.hotkey.net.au> <4Yp58.2940$By6.409005@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net> <u5cbhbr3c7e7c0@corp.supernews.com> <Koq58.3028$By6.409005@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net> <u5cf9m8n2772b9@corp.supernews.com> <Gqp7CG.4r9@bath.ac.uk> <9a35093e.0201290638.3c7d33c4@posting.google.com>
X-Priority: 3
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 18:58:11 GMT
Xref: news.duke.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:98134

"Ice9" <IceNine@oddball.com> wrote in message
news:9a35093e.0201290638.3c7d33c4@posting.google.com...
>   Mmmmm.  I have seen few/no IF games that make you click a box saying
> 'I agree to the terms of this game'.

Irrelevant.  Neither does a lot of software.  The license, however, states
that to use the software is to signify acceptance of the license.  Saying 'I
didn't read the license' isn't a defence; the disks usually say 'Read the
license before installing', or the license is prominently displayed
somewhere somehow.

> Having a quick browse through the archive...many games
> come just as is, not even in a zip, so no atached license agreement,
> many zips lack agreements.  So many do not even have a license!

Odd; is there no general license covering the archive?  That's the usual
practice for public archive sites -- this is the default license, any
license included with a particular download supersedes it.

As an aside, under UK law it *is* an offence to download items from a server
you aren't allowed to access.  The existence of a publicly accessible server
doesn't actually grant anyone the right to access it, just as the fact that
I could walk across the field behind my house doesn't mean I'm allowed to.
It is possible to be prosecuted for accessing a server you shouldn't, but of
course that doesn't apply to a public archive site.  That's why most
archives I've seen include either a disclaimer (you must agree to any
license included to use...) or a general covering license (software is
provided as is, you are entitled to use this software yourself without
restriction...) somewhere.

> If made a piece of work, and that had in the license agreement (which
> most people do not read)

Just because it hasn't been read doesn't mean its terms don't apply.  Most
software is licensed; if you don't read the license, that's your pigeon.

> something along the lines of:
>
> 'All of your income from here onwards is payable to us, debts you can
> keep'
>
> then you you would be happy with this?

No.  That's a unreasonable clause (there is a legal term for such things,
but IANAL -- that's why we pay people to write our licenses).  I'm not sure
whether such a clause would render the whole contract void or just that
clause -- it may be dependant on your country's contract law.  In any case,
the license cannot grant the supplier any additonal rights; it can waive
some of the author's rights and/or grant the user additional rights.

--
Regards,
Ben A L Jemmett.
(http://web.ukonline.co.uk/ben.jemmett/, http://www.deltasoft.com/)


