Bruce Perens on OSI

[Robert Bushman]

Nothing really wrong per-se with click-wrapping (for
example) a GPL program, as long as clicking "I Refuse"
has no effect on the installation or functionality
of the software (Free Software only requires agreement
for modification and redistribution).

At that point, however, I'd contend it's no longer
clickwrap, since it doesn't require agreement.


On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Alan Dayley wrote:

> OK.  I am with you guys.  Click-wrap "feels un-Free."
>
> Now, not trolling, just interested in the discussion, what do you see wrong
> with a click-wrap license that is Free?
>
> Let's say I put a click-wrap around a license that is simply a rewording of
> the GPL, granting the same redistribution, editing, etc. rights as the
> GPL.  I can see two things bad about that:
>
> 1. As I stated, it "feels un-Free"  This is not to be taken lightly.  It
> really changes the whole "flavor" of Free Software toward the bitter side.
>
> 2. As Derek sites, the GPL really only goes in force (is accepted) at the
> time of redistribution so a click-wrap before even using the software seems
> like the wrong time to require a physical acceptance action by the
> user.  But, implementing a click-wrap at redistribution time is not really
> possible.
>
> What else is so bad about it?  Or, perhaps these two reasons are enough to
> call a click-wrap unacceptable for Open Source / Free Software.
>
> Alan
>
> At 04:07 PM 8/2/02 -0500, you wrote:
> > > A little rant? Why thank you, don't mind if I do :)
> >
> >Since we are on mini-rants.  For those that like to advocate Open Source
> >over Free Software when evangelizing, please, take note that the very
> >CREATOR of the OSI says its the 'worse mistake he has made'.
> >
> >If "Open Source" were merely a label to help Free Software get in the door
> >it would be one thing, but instead it has become as Bruce states a
> >'schism' that lost all original intention.
> >
> > > What spurred him to such heights? OSI is actually
> > > considering a license that requires click-wrap.
> > > How could a license possibly meet the spirit of
> > > open source if it is more restrictive than
> > > traditional copyright? Only licenses which attempt
> > > to take away the rights you are guaranteed by copyright
> > > law need attempt to gain legal validity with clickwrap.
> > > Every Free Software license grants the user rights
> > > in addition to the rights (EG: fair use) that the
> > > user already enjoys under copyright. If you are
> > > trying to extend beyond copyright, you have no
> > > place calling your software open source.
> > >
> > > Clickwrap EULA's remove your rights and sell them
> > > back a tiny little bit at a time. There is nothing
> > > honorable in this.
> >
> >Bob you have done well in summing this up, anyone wishing to get a more
> >legal (and verbose perspective) can do so here. (
> >http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html  )
> >
> >Specifically:
> >
> >Because there's nothing complex or controversial about the license's
> >substantive provisions, I have never even seen a serious argument that the
> >GPL exceeds a licensor's powers. But it is sometimes said that the GPL
> >can't be enforced because users haven't ``accepted'' it.
> >
> >This claim is based on a misunderstanding. The license does not require
> >anyone to accept it in order to acquire, install, use, inspect, or even
> >experimentally modify GPL'd software. All of those activities are either
> >forbidden or controlled by proprietary software firms, so they require you
> >to accept a license, including contractual provisions outside the reach of
> >copyright, before you can use their works. The free software movement
> >thinks all those activities are rights, which all users ought to have; we
> >don't even want to cover those activities by license. Almost everyone who
> >uses GPL'd software from day to day needs no license, and accepts none.
> >The GPL only obliges you if you distribute software made from GPL'd code,
> >and only needs to be accepted when redistribution occurs. And because no
> >one can ever redistribute without a license, we can safely presume that
> >anyone redistributing GPL'd software intended to accept the GPL. After
> >all, the GPL requires each copy of covered software to include the license
> >text, so everyone is fully informed.
> >
> >While Eben happens to be talking directly about the GPL here, the
> >statement holds for Free Software licenses in general.
> >
> >-Derek
> >
> >________________________________________________
> >See http://PLUG.phoenix.az.us/navigator-mail.shtml if your mail doesn't
> >post to the list quickly and you use Netscape to write mail.
> >
> >PLUG-discuss mailing list  -  PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> >http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>
>
> ________________________________________________
> See http://PLUG.phoenix.az.us/navigator-mail.shtml if your mail doesn't post to the list quickly and you use Netscape to write mail.
>
> PLUG-discuss mailing list  -  PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>

--------------------------------------------------------------------
 'Microsoft also warned today that the era of "open computing," the
 free exchange of digital information that has defined the personal
 computer industry, is ending.'

 http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/25/technology/25NET.html

 Will Microsoft permit you to use your mission critical data when
 you need it?  Linux will, and you have the source to prove it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------