> 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