On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Alan Dayley wrote:
> The ONLY possibly good thing I can think of is if someone gets caught
> keeping open code closed. They could not say they did not know it required
> open source if redistributed, because they had to physically do the
> click-through when they first got the code. I am imagining some lawyer
> somewhere coming up with this reason.
Where did they get the idea they could violate the
copyright on that software and redistribute it?
> I don't think this benefit, even if it is real, is worth the bad things
> click-through does to Open or Free software.
>
> Alan
>
> At 05:28 PM 8/2/02 -0500, you wrote:
> > > 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)
> >
> >-Derek
>
> -
> /------------------------------------------
> |Alan Dayley www.adtron.com
> |Software Engineer 602-735-0300 x331
> |ADayley@adtron.com
> |
> |Adtron Corporation
> |3710 E. University Drive, Suite 5
> |Phoenix, AZ 85034
> \-------------------------------------------
>
>
> ________________________________________________
> 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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
(text/plain)