Re: OSD && DFSG convergence
Steve Langasek writes:
> Hmm, I think there are two separate issues here: there's the EULA
> itself, which almost certainly violates the FSF's "freedom zero" (the
> freedom to use the software, even if the user doesn't agree with the
> license for redistribution and modification);
But the user does indeed have the freedom to use the software. They
have a license that says so. It even includes a patent grant, which
they don't have if they don't agree with the license. And agreeing
with the license requires a manifestation of assent. And that
manifestation of assent is click-wrap.
What term of the DFSG *clearly* says that a license cannot require
click-wrap?
> fair bet that, if click-wrap licenses of any kind are allowed, sooner or
> later someone will try to embed in their distribution license a
> requirement to present the user with a truly heinous EULA -- and they'll
> probably still try to call it "free" (or "Open").
And indeed, the DFSG allows click-wrap licenses.
> It may have been an oversight that the DFSG never directly addressed
> freedom zero
Yup. Yet another thing that needs to be fixed -- in the OSD as well.
> the software; requiring developers to preserve the code that displays
> the clickwrap dialog box conflicts with this freedom.
You already have to preserve code that displays the GPL's license
notice. To misquote G.B. Shaw, we have established that Debian
developers are willing to have their freedom restricted; Now we are
trying to establish the limits."
http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/main/uncommon/fall98/301.html
--
-russ nelson http://russnelson.com | You get prosperity when
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | the government does less,
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | not when the government
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | does something right.
Reply to: