On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 09:35:03PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote: > > I'm inclined to believe that your second example is also a minor > > issue, because if the software is DFSG-compliant in all other > > respects, it should be possible to legally remove the click-wrap > > requirement from the code -- just as you can charge someone a fee > > for giving them GPL software, but you cannot prevent them from > > giving it away for free once they have it. > > Why do you think you can unilaterally change the terms of a license?
Removing code that displays a license and accepts a "yes" or "no" click doesn't change the license at all. If you're allowed to remove this code and redistribute the program without the click-through, then there's no problem; do so. If the license has a clause saying "you can't remove the code that forces the user to click through this license"--which would legally prevent doing the above--then this requirement itself is DFSG-unfree. Of course, for a click-through license to have any meaning[1], it needs to be required, so it would need to contain such a clause. So, in practice, click-through licenses are DFSG-unfree. A clause in the DFSG making this explicit would be superfluous. [1] assuming they can have any meaning at all -- Glenn Maynard
