Re: Open Software License v2.1
On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 05:13:02PM +0100, Adam Sampson wrote:
> >From that license:
> | If You distribute copies of the Original Work or a Derivative Work,
> | You must make a reasonable effort under the circumstances to obtain
> | the express assent of recipients to the terms of this License.
>
> Doesn't that make it somewhat impractical for mirror sites to carry
> OSL-licensed software? I can imagine that an author would consider it
> "reasonable" to require click-wrap approval of the license whenever a
> file's downloaded by HTTP, for example; that certainly seems to be the
> intent of that clause. (It's something we've implemented in the past
> for distributing non-free software, so it's definitely possible.)
I don't believe click-wrap requirements can possibly be considered Free
at all.
The only reason that they exist, as far as I know, is for contract
licenses: licenses that go beyond the restrictions possible with simple
copyright law, and thus (unlike regular licenses) need to be agreed to
to be binding.
There are all kinds of issues. Most restrictions that are beyond
copyright law are also DFSG-unfree in their own right. Contract licenses
have their own sets of issues; from what I understand, contract law
is much less standardized than copyright law, so it varies much more
by region. Contracts introduce the issue of "compensation", so contract
licenses may not even be valid for free software, where a typical user
offers none. Click-wrap is unreasonable; if each license says "you must
have the user agree to this license", then there'd be a dozen click-wrap
dialogs (or a completely insane "do you agree to be contractually bound
by lots of contracts, the text of which is too verbose to actually show
you?").
I don't see any redeeming values in allowing them. They exist only to
allow copyright holders to restrict people in more ways.
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: