What are the details regarding the non-necessity of adhering to the conditions of arbitration by positive law courts in free or purchased software programs, and what is the evidence for the permissibility of agreeing to them? What is the ruling on using programs whose terms stipulate that the user does not own them but only possesses a license for their use? And what is the basis for stipulating necessity for its permissibility, and does its absence prevent permissibility? And does signing the contract with the presence of this condition constitute consent to it?

Invalid conditions that only appear after the purchase are not binding on the buyer, because a valid condition is one that is contemporaneous with the contract or made during the two options (the option of the session or the option of stipulation).

If the contract stipulates that the user does not own the program, then this is a permissible lease contract, provided that the duration is specified.

Signing an invalid condition does not entail consent to it. The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, permitted Aisha to agree to the invalid condition of al-wala' (loyalty) in the story of Barirah, while not being bound by it, because he, peace and blessings be upon him, said: "Any condition that is not in the Book of Allah is invalid."

It is permissible to sign an invalid condition, such as resorting to man-made courts, when there is a necessity or urgent need, with the intention not to commit a transgression that would necessitate litigation before them. The aggrieved party should relinquish their right if the situation calls for it.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah permitted the buyer to enter into a contract with an invalid condition if the seller would not sell otherwise, and the condition would not harm the buyer, because the buyer would not be bound by it.