In your opinion, would the act of distributing a piece of (say) GPL software or a derivative of it be sufficient to indicate assent, assuming that the distributor in question obtained the software by downloading a source tarball via ftp, without click-wrap, and that the tarball had a file called COPYING with the full text of the GPL?
My apologies if this has been clearly answered before. People have suggested and/or asserted it (e.g., http://www.mail-archive.com/license-discuss@;opensource.org/msg05228.html), but I couldn't find it stated unequivocally by a lawyer. Noah On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 18:22:33 -0800, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote: > There's been much discussion lately about click-wrap licenses. I'm > attaching an article I wrote on this topic for my Linux Journal column. > Please don't distribute this article without my permission so that Linux > Journal will have the opportunity to publish it first. /Larry Rosen -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
