Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The question here is whether we should amend the Open Source > Definition so that it is clear whether click-wrap licenses are > allowable or not. We could go either way, but we want to hear from > you first. Your opinions solicited, and engaged!
Personally, I would say that a click-wrap license can be an open source license. Perhaps more to the point, I think that an open source license can mandate an appropriate click-wrap in any derivative work. I see this as an extension of GPL 2(c), which says that an interactive program is required to display a copyright notice and a notice saying that there is no warranty. That is, the GPL specifies that there are certain specific changes which one is not permitted to make, and those changes are related to informing the user of their rights. While a click-wrap license is not precisely the same thing, I think it is sufficiently similar that a license which required a click-wrap could be considered to be open source. (I of course assume that it meets all the other conditions.) Ian -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3