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."
Here
I would be careful not to over-read the court's point. In Specht v.
Netscape, the court is trying to highlight factors that distinguish
browser-wrap from click-wrap since other courts have generally viewed
browser-wrap contracts as lacking strong indicia of mutual assent.
If the website appears
Let me try to make it clear that I know the good samaritan laws don't apply
to software or any other non-emergency situation - only for emergencies,
where the time it takes to get a waiver signed could otherwise cost a life
(or a house). I am also quite aware that liability has nothing to do wi
On Sunday 11 August 2002 09:11 am, Bruce Dodson wrote:
> Although open source development isn't done in an emergency situation, it
> is done by many whose only goal is to help people, and who don't ask any
> compensation other than a nod of recognition.
There is a very good reason why the vario
Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
>'Forrest J. Cavalier III' wrote:
>I would want to agree individually, not in bulk.
>
Courts also insist that it should be that way.
>... That is why I suggested in the notice that you
>there be a simple procedure to review all the licenses.
>
"Please review and agree
Here, here. I agree completely that this would be absurd. Yet I still
worry. Hopefully the law will eventually agree with us on this point.
In Canada we have a "good samaritan" law; I don't know whether something
like that exists in the USA. The good samaritan law says that, in an
emergenc
> Er, I agree. :-). But, as an open source author, does the
> limitation of
> liability protect me? The contract that the end user clicked
> is between the
> distributor and the end user; does it protect the original
> developer, who is
> a third-party? (Or is the distributor is seen as a
I think an umbrella type contract between the distributor and the end user would
be effective only with regard to claims between those two parties. However, if
the numerous licenses in the files do not purport to create a contract, there is
no privity of contract between the user and the develop
Er, I agree. :-). But, as an open source author, does the limitation of
liability protect me? The contract that the end user clicked is between the
distributor and the end user; does it protect the original developer, who is
a third-party? (Or is the distributor is seen as an agent, facilita
'Forrest J. Cavalier III' wrote:
> How do you form a contract without presenting the terms? Is there a
> way to review the terms without clicking? Is such vague
> language sufficient to incorporate all the terms (of those
> possibly 800
> licenses) by reference? Seems against common sense to
> "Lawrence E. Rosen" wrote:
> > To: License-discuss
> > After private follow-up discussion among interested parties,
> > I am proposing the following Open Source Click-Wrap Notice
> > that can be used for the distribution of open source software.
> >
> > I seek the review of the participants on l
"Lawrence E. Rosen" wrote:
> To: License-discuss
>
> After private follow-up discussion among interested parties, I am
> proposing the following Open Source Click-Wrap Notice that can be used
> for the distribution of open source software.
>
> I seek the review of the participants on license-di
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, in part:
> Your answer added nothing to the discussion. Please give some legal
> argument why a single click-wrap won't bind the licensee to all relevant
> licenses.
How do you form a contract without presenting the terms? Is there a
way to review the terms without cl
Message-
> From: Mahesh T Pai [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2002 6:13 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Open Source Click-Wrap Notice
>
>
> Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
>
> >>Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
> >>Here, we are pr
Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
>>Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
>>Here, we are presented with a case where one click is
>>intended to indicate assent to license A, B, C, D, E,
>>(ad infinitum; minimum 800 as in a linux distro). No, the
>>click wrap notice will not hold in a court of law.
>>
>>
>
>Want to b
"Forrest J. Cavalier III" wrote:
> You can't run most source code. You must compile it, which is
> preparing a derivative work.
Not quite...
"[T]he U.S. Copyright Office has traditionally taken the view that object
code is not a derivative work of source code. Instead, the Copyright
Officers
16 matches
Mail list logo
