On Thursday 14 July 2005 02:28 pm, Don Armstrong wrote: > 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.
Ah, agreement! Fantastic. There are some semantic differences between us, but nothing worth quibbling over. Obviously the GPL prohibits a pop-up which cannot be removed by a later distributor. My only contention was that as a distributor, if I wanted extra assurance that those I was distributing to saw the GPL, that I could have it pop up in my distributions. -Sean -- 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
