On Wednesday 13 July 2005 10:32 pm, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 10:07:49PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote: > > I'm talking about copyright infringement. Maybe I'm the only one?! The > > question is whether its "okay" to mandate acceptance of the GPL at > > download. I am suggesting that you have to agree to it in order to avoid > > copyright infringement. Hence, if you have to agree the GPL to copy it > > off the server in the first place, a "click-wrap" license is no more > > non-free than just simply attacting the license as part of the COPYING > > file. > > No, the question is whether it's free to mandate *explicit*, click-through > acceptance of the GPL at (download, install, whatever) time. (The question > of whether it's acceptable to mandate agreement to a contract at all, and > whether the GPL does so, is unrelated.) > > There's a world of difference between 1: requiring that a person agree to > something, but allowing that agreement to be expressed implicitly, through > conduct (eg. by doing something which only the license allows), and 2: > requiring that a person (and all recipients of the program from that > person, and so on) indicate his agreement by displaying the license and > refusing to install unless a button is clicked. #2 is what's in question, > and requiring #2 is infinitely more invasive and problematic than #1. > > I don't know how you can keep claiming that #1 == #2; they have nothing > in common.
I am so confused. #1 allows a licensor to impose all manner of terms without giving actual notice to the licensee, whereas #2 at least gives the licensee a chance. The warranty provisions are a great example. The GPL rejects all implied warranties, but doesn't tell a licensee it does so unless they go to the trouble of reading the COPYING file. How does displaying the license first and requiring folks say "yes, I understand" more problematic or invasive? Believe me, I understand the visceral reaction to click-wrap licenses. I have had a lot of debates with law professors on the issue of whether click-wrap licenses are a "good thing" since they postpone term presentation until far after money has changed hands. But no one has presented a cogent argument about how mandating that people actually agree to the terms of the GPL poses a threat to the DFSG. -- Sean Kellogg 3rd Year - University of Washington School of Law Graduate & Professional Student Senate Treasurer UW Service & Activities Committee Interim Chair w: http://probonogeek.blogspot.com So, let go ...Jump in ...Oh well, what you waiting for? ...it's all right ...'Cause there's beauty in the breakdown
