Windows Media Player user license extensions

[David Hansen]

On 3 Jul 2002 at 13:53, Owen Lewis wrote:

> I think there is an
> onus on the licensor to state fairly the terms of the licence before a
> sale is contacted where it is practical to do so.

I disagree with software companies trying to escape from their 
obligations by claiming that they are not selling something. That is 
entirely bogus, but also another discussion so i will leave it.

Fairly must include being clear, concise and in plain language. Banks 
have lost my custom (not that it's worth much) because they failed to 
explain what "reasonable precautions" actually are. Waffle is no use. 
Borland used to have reasonably clear terms that would be a good 
starting point.

> It is then
> unreasonable to cry 'unfair' if the licencee does not bother to read
> what he is given.

That depends on the above.

It is perfectly reasonable to say something is unfair if it is 
deliberately written to discourage people from reading it. Huge 
amounts of small text, some too small to read, is not an attempt to 
be clear. It is an attempt to stop people reading it. It is perfectly 
possible to be clear and concise. I think the Plain English campaign 
can give lessons on how to do this.


--
  David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will *always* explain why I revoke a key, unless the UK 
 government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.