That is my point Hans, Since you are using a license and per earlier
examples of people stating that they have software with no license I can
see why somebody might think making people aware of and
acknowledging/accepting the license might not be a bad idea before they
just start using it.
It might even stop or slow down people from stealing GLP'ed software and
then saying well it did not have a license, I did not have to agree to a
singe thing. Now it is true that they did BUT many people don't
understand that even on the OpenSource/Free Software community. So it is
not an irrelevant point to make them aware that they are getting
something of value and they are expected to comply with the license to
gain use of it.
Cheers,
Davidm
On Fri, 2002-08-02 at 18:31, der.hans wrote:
> Am 02. Aug, 2002 schwätzte Robert Bushman so:
>
> > 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).
>
> Not quite true, I'd think. The license also grants you the right to use the
> software. Before that is granted you're not allowed to use it. The license
> does, however, grant you the right to use it however you see fit. Is this
> the freedom guarantee that makes knowledge of the license irrelevant until
> the code is redistributed?
>
> ciao,
>
> der.hans
> --
> # https://www.LuftHans.com/
> # A t-shirt a day keeps the noose (tie) away. - der.hans
>
> ________________________________________________
> 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
(text/plain)