Bruce Perens on OSI

[Alan Dayley]

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.

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
\-------------------------------------------