On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 12:50:16PM -0400, Brian Sniffen wrote: > Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> writes: > > 6. ACCEPTANCE. > > > > Copying, distributing or modifying the Work (including but not > > limited to sampling from the Work in a new work) indicates > > acceptance of these terms. > > > > The only thing that can indicate my acceptance of a contractual > > agreement is my signature. [...] > How is this different from GPL 5: > > 5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not > signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify > or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions > are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. > Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work > based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License > to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, > distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it. Hmm, good point; the GNU GPL takes a slightly stronger stance than I would like as well. Oh well. I'll give up this particular Quixotic fight. I will continue to hate licenses that arrogate to themselves the privilege of asserting what I have or have not agreed to, however. > Especially when you look at DSL 2, and its references to fair use copying. Yes, my gripe with section 6 of DSL now boils down to tone rather than content. > I don't think this license is exactly what you're looking for anyway: > its definitions of "preferred form for editing" look like they have > similar intent to what's been discussed for a DFCL, but don't define > things well enough. In reviewing it, I agree. There is still a problem here that is yet to be solved. -- G. Branden Robinson | Debian GNU/Linux | De minimis non curat lex. branden@debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
pgpJEhSHRdFpo.pgp
Description: PGP signature