IANAL :-)
/Larry Rosen wrote
The judge wrote This argument misses the point. The question before me is whether
the parties have first bound themselves to the contract. If they have unequivocally
agreed to be bound, the contract is enforceable whether or not they have read its
terms.
An article in Linux World that compares the installation of Win2k to Red
Hat 7.3 concludes with some remarks that nicely illustrates some issues
raised in this click through and click wrap discussions:
http://www.linuxworld.com/site-stories/2002/0812.install.html
Quote:
the constant
I kept my own email short because I knew there were other people, better
qualified to speak on this. Rod, thanks for stepping forward. You
presented the facts more thoroughly than I could. By the way, although you
say you disagree with me, I don't think I disagree with you. I'm not sure
Russell Nelson wrote:
[ Catching up on mail from ten days ago ]
Carol A. Kunze writes:
Here is the theoretical difference between proprietary and traditional (GPL,
BSD) free software. With the former the user agrees to a license and does
not get title to the copy of the program.
Carol A. Kunze writes:
Berstein says - In the United States, once you own a copy of a
program, you can back it up, compile it, run it, and even modify it
as necessary, without permission from the copyright holder. See 17
USC 117.
You have to OWN the copy. When I say that in a
On Tuesday 13 August 2002 08:30 pm, Carol A. Kunze wrote:
You have to OWN the copy. When I say that in a proprietary license the
licensor reserves title to the copy, I am saying the licensor takes the
view that the user does not OWN the copy.
... If you buy a
house you can do what you
On Tuesday 13 August 2002 08:52 pm, Russell Nelson wrote:
Oh, it's *always* had to be changed. Anybody could insert
restrictions on use into a license and ask us to approve it. Since
the OSD says nothing about a license not being allowed to have
restrictions on use, we would have to
David Johnson writes:
On Tuesday 13 August 2002 08:52 pm, Russell Nelson wrote:
Oh, it's *always* had to be changed. Anybody could insert
restrictions on use into a license and ask us to approve it. Since
the OSD says nothing about a license not being allowed to have
David Johnson wrote:
I still do not understand why the OSI definition would have to change. Why
is the requirement for clickwrap any different from those licenses which
OSI has blessed and which in fact are intended to be agreements? Can
someone clue me in here?
The main issue in
On Tuesday 13 August 2002 09:12 pm, Russell Nelson wrote:
But anyway, feel free to propose language. I've had my shot, and been
shot down.
I'll number this one zero for traditional reasons:
0) The possessor of a copy of the software must not be required to enter into
or become party to any
On Tuesday 13 August 2002 09:37 pm, Carol A. Kunze wrote:
In any event, I am going to have to go back and reread the approved
licenses to see which ones require entering into an agreement and the
extent to which downsteam distributors are required to do the same.
Since distribution is an
I want to summarize what we have discussed on click-wrap because the issue
is significant from the standpoint of the legal standing of open source
licenses, and so I can include proposed responses in our research project on
the OSD.
It is my understanding that the issue initially involved the
But the use of the software is not an exclusive right of the
author. That's
why click-wrap is problematic.
I understood the point that Rod Dixon was making is that section 117(a)
of the Copyright Act applies, by its own words, to owners of a copy as
distinguished from licensees. If that
I think you *almost* have it right, Rod.
There are two different issues at stake here.
First, Bruce Perens and others have been concerned for some time that
the OSD does not address the right to use software; it is silent on that
point. OSI has been asked in the past to approve licenses that
14 matches
Mail list logo
