On Thu, 14 Jul 2005, Sean Kellogg wrote: > On Thursday 14 July 2005 12:56 am, Don Armstrong wrote: > > On Wed, 13 Jul 2005, Sean Kellogg wrote: > > > 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. > > > > Surely you can see that requiring the clickwrap license to be viewed > > by the user is a serious restriction both on modification (3) and a > > field of endeavor (7); especially as there's no "clickwrap license" > > over RSS protocol. > > The original downloader (slashdot) would be obliged to click on the > 'I accept the GPL terms' because the original author's chose to put > it in there. But there is nothing stoping slashdot from ripping out > the clickwrap before they put load it onto their system.
We're discussing two different things then. If the click wrap can be removed from the program, then I submit that it is not mandatory, nor a requirement of "actual manifestation of assent." It's merely a dialog box that the author happened to have placed into their program because they felt it would be nice to have people click on a button. Don Armstrong -- She was alot like starbucks. IE, generic and expensive. -- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/batch3.htm http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
