It's not imposed on you in the same way that license agreements are imposed.
Some license agreements (such as the GNU GPL) are imposed due to you taking certain actions (which would otherwise be forbidden). Others are imposed via other mechanisms.
In the Princeton case, the agreement is imposed as a condition of attending. You can't say, "well, I won't agree to this, but I still want to attend." You're not given that option. If you were, I would agree that there is a difference.
But in general when rules are imposed by non-government (non-parent, for children) parties, you have the choice of following the rules or not taking advantage of the parties' services. That doesn't mean that such rules are always legitimate, or that there is no coercion. Indeed, I think most rules are illegitimate. But it is no more dishonorable to break a rule which is phrased as a rule than it is to break one that is phrased as an agreement.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
(no subject)
Date: 2006-08-11 07:38 pm (UTC)Some license agreements (such as the GNU GPL) are imposed due to you taking certain actions (which would otherwise be forbidden). Others are imposed via other mechanisms.
In the Princeton case, the agreement is imposed as a condition of attending. You can't say, "well, I won't agree to this, but I still want to attend." You're not given that option. If you were, I would agree that there is a difference.
But in general when rules are imposed by non-government (non-parent, for children) parties, you have the choice of following the rules or not taking advantage of the parties' services. That doesn't mean that such rules are always legitimate, or that there is no coercion. Indeed, I think most rules are illegitimate. But it is no more dishonorable to break a rule which is phrased as a rule than it is to break one that is phrased as an agreement.