> Now, not trolling, just interested in the discussion, what do you see wrong > with a click-wrap license that is Free?
It just doesnt make sense. Analogies never seem to work, but it would
be like requiring your signature for cash purchases.
> 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.
Its not even so much that it 'feels' unfree as its just superflous. It is
necessary in EULAs that wish to use copyright to remove freedoms, but in
packages that afford rights not remove them it just doesnt seem to serve a
purpose. I suppose one could argue by making a click through that you
would be informing a user of all the great rights they are about to
recieve. So whats the problem?
Its much like the open vs free debate. It sounds good today but erodes
over time. People just do NOT really read these things. If Free Software
starts popping click throughs explaining all the new great freedoms you
get soon EULA's that are bad will be hard to distinguish from ones that
are good.
For example ask most people the difference between say the MPL license and
the LGPL or QPL and BSD or such. Most wont know the difference but up
front they look similar (in some ways). I wont say that doing click
through licensing will kill free software (just as the open source hasnt),
but I will say that in the long run it will probably lead to more
confusion and the ability for predators to more readily abuse users. (this
of course is just MHO)
> 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.
Oh ye of little faith. :)
I am quoting from a lawyer (though I am not a lawyer): Eben Moglen (FSF
Counsel) and perhaps one of top experts on software licensing:
"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. "
The need for click-wrap at distribution they argue is not necessary
because you cant redistribute w/o a license and so legal presumption
exists that any restribution implies acceptance of the GPL.
> 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.
Again terminology wise I could see Open Source licenses needing this as
open source doesnt "necessarily" by definition afford the freedoms that
would make such an agreement superflous. However, I cant see a Free Software license
needing this, because the freedoms afforded are greater than the law used
to enforce them (copyright). (that is my Not a Lawyer take)
(text/plain)