Re: EULAs and the DFSG
Martin Wuertele <email@example.com>:
> Besides that there are countries like Austria where click-through
> licenses are not legally binding.
It's not clear to me whether you're talking about a web page that asks
you to agree to some terms before downloading the software, or a
program that asks you to agree to some terms before continuing.
The former looks like it might be a valid contract in most places:
downloading the software involves copying it, which requires
permission, and that permission is being made conditional on
acceptance of certain terms.
The latter looks like it might be total crap in most places: you don't
need permission to run the program once you have it, and even if you
did need permission, you can't very well get that permission by
performing an acceptance ceremony in private with no witnesses.
By the way, I just tried (unsuccessfully) to compile (not under
Debian) libqt3-psql-3.0.3-20020314. When you run ./configure you are
asked to accept the terms of the GPL:
|> This is the Qt/X11 Free Edition.
|> You are licensed to use this software under the terms of either
|> the Q Public License (QPL) or the GNU General Public License (GPL).
|> Type 'Q' to view the Q Public License.
|> Type 'G' to view the GNU General Public License.
|> Type 'yes' to accept this license offer.
|> Type 'no' to decline this license offer.
|> Do you accept the terms of either license?
Perhaps this makes sense under the QPL, which I haven't read, but if
one were to "accept" the GPL there's nothing to stop one
redistributing the code without that little dialogue, I assume.