On Sun, Apr 11, 2004 at 11:19:11AM +0200, Anders Torger wrote: > Many has said that because of this, GPL is not enforcable in most > software packages, since they do not have click-wrap installation > procedures.
http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/lu-12.html http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/lu-13.html Eben Moglen's professional legal opinion disagrees, and so I'm inclined to consider this FUD until it has some legal competence behind it. Click-wrap licenses are only used on licenses placing conditions on users which are beyond copyright law, which the GPL does not do. Further, I believe that no license requiring a click-wrap can be free (by the DFSG, or my own personal opinion), since it's an unreasonable burden on distribution and users. I'm writing software that uses a dozen libraries, many with slightly different terms (GPL, LGPL, MIT, X11, etc). It's completely unreasonable to expect users to read, understand and agree to half a dozen licenses on installation, which is what would happen if all of those were click-wrap. I can hardly imagine how much reading people would have in front of them when installing Linux, if all of the licenses in their distribution were click-wrap. -- Glenn Maynard
