Ooh, I don't think so.

The "general terms of business" are defined in law as a statutory contract. Ergo, even underage individuals can enter into a contract of simple trade.

If such terms were to be imposed as "general terms of business", some sort of contract would be signed at the time of purchase. Yet purchasing software involves nothing more than the default statutory contract of trade.

The nonsense found in EULAs has no such government endorsement. What's more, entering into a contract requires some sort of knowledge of the contract. You can't tell me that downloading something from a website has made me a party to a contract, because having no idea of this, it's impossible for me to be a party to it.

After all: without altering the program (which is not allowed without a license)

Says who? If I own a copyrighted work, I'm entitled to do what I like with it, save for copying it. That includes modifying it. There is no difference here from me buying a book and scribbling all over it.

Depending on the software, you can also just extract the files without running the installer. Additionally, proving that you "agreed" to the licence needn't be nearly as simple; the user that uses the software isn't necessarily the person that installed it. I also have difficulty believing that EULAs are valid instruments; in disproving the false statements that only the EULA grants you permission to use the software, the EULA becomes extremely one-sided. EULAs that attempt to redefine the nature of a transaction that has already occured, from a sale to a grant of a licence, are particularly entertaining.

Simply put, a license is an agreement giving you the right to use the software.

This is simply false. If I make a piece of software, and distribute it for free online, I don't have to grant the users permission for their use of the software to be lawful. Copyright grants monopoly rights solely over the creation of copies; however, copies of computer programmes created that are technically necessary to the use of software in conjunction with a machine are permitted by law under USC 17-117.

A successful demonstration of this is the GPL:

You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program.

Of course, the software is still covered by copyright and it's license, so you're really selling the license.

False. A second hand sale involves the sale of physical property. There is no exception for software. A "license" can refer to many things; in the context of software it tends to refer to a fictional concept created by the software industry, the implication being that one is required, typically per user, or even per feature. However, a second-hand copy of a piece of software is a lawfully produced copy of a copyrighted work, and so no license is required merely to transfer ownership, nor is a "license" legally required to use a piece of software.

USC 17-117 creates an exemption for copyright with regards to copies of computer programmes technically necessary to their use in conjunction with a machine. Thus, copies of a computer programme made on a hard drive or in RAM are not infringing.

The lack of necessity of a "license" is demonstrated in the GPL. The GPL explicitly states "You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program.".

The OpenSSL library provides a varied array of cryptographic services, not just an SSL implementation. Just because something uses OpenSSL doesn't mean it's SSL-based. I suggest you grep the SSH RFCs for 'SSL' and 'TLS'; you won't find anything of note.