Back to the license (Score 1)

IANAL && First Posting It's worth noting that this license is issued in accordance with the laws of the state of Virginia. This means that it is potentially interpreted under the UCITA which in that state comes into affect in June (or is it July?) 2001. Although Virginia seems to have toned down the provisions of the law, the terms and conditions of any EULA intterpreted in terms of the provisions of UCITA are still not acceptable to most people. Though the license does state that it in no way is to be understood as any sort of association between the licensee and the company, the wording is vague. When it has been discussed before, it has been suggested that licensors should make crystal clear _explicitly_ that the license is not to be interpreted in terms of contract law, but is a copyright license. This is because (AKAIK) assumption that UCITA provisions are enabled in a license is the default (????) GPL is well known to be explicitly founded on provisions of copyright law, but what about other more vaguely expressed examples? RMS has often cautioned about the risks of UCITA to all of us. I didn't take it too seriously before, but this has got me thinking. Coming from the EU, it is possible that the European Convention on Human Rights would protect me and other citizens from most onerous attacks by licensors under UCITA (whatever Gatt 7 might say), but still I wouldn't `click through' this license until I was absolutely certain I wasn't signing up to a private contract whose terms and conditions I didn't accept.