Why do you think reading the agreement is notionally mandatory before the software becomes functional?

Most paid software generally makes you acknowledge that you have read and accepted the terms of the license before first use, and includes a clause that continued use of the software constitutes acceptance of the license terms.

In the event that you try to play games to get around that acknowledgement: Courts aren't machines, they can tell that you're acting in bad faith to avoid license restrictions and can punish you appropriately.

▲

thaumasiotes 3 days ago | parent [-]

>> Why do you think reading the agreement is notionally mandatory before the software becomes functional?

> Most paid software generally makes you acknowledge that you have read and accepted the terms of the license before first use, and includes a clause that continued use of the software constitutes acceptance of the license terms.

Huh. If only I'd known that.

Why do you think that is?

▲

dotnet00 3 days ago | parent [-]

How about you directly say what you're trying to say instead of being unnecessarily sarcastic?

	▲	thaumasiotes 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		If it's possible to use software without agreeing to the license, then the license really doesn't bind the user. That's why people try to make it mandatory. Why did you think it made sense to respond to the question "Why do you think X is true?" with "Did you know that X is true?"?