Re: OSD && DFSG convergence
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> Russell Nelson <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> > > Russell Nelson <email@example.com> writes:
> > >
> > > > What term of the DFSG *clearly* says that a license cannot require
> > > > click-wrap?
> > >
> > > DFSG says that modifications must be permitted. One modification that
> > > must be permitted is to modify the software removing the "click-wrap"
> > > implementation.
> > You are not allowed to remove the copyright statement from a source
> > file. You are not allowed to remove the code which announces the
> > license on a GPL'ed program.
> Yes, ....
I'm glad you agree that the GPL prohibits some modifications.
> but a click-wrap implementation is not a mere license notice, but
> a fair bit more, isn't it?
The current state of the art, in terms of ensuring license compliance,
says that you have to ensure that both parties realize that they're
entering into a contract, and you have to make sure that there is a
manifestation of assent. There has to be some act towards which you
can point saying "We told them that if they did X, they agreed to a
contract, and they did X, so they must have agreed."
I think the DFSG shouldn't allow a license to impose a requirement for
a GUI, but neither can I see any place in the DFSG which clearly
prohibits it. That's why we added term #10 to the OSD.
-russ nelson http://russnelson.com | A government does enough
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | wrong to offset what it
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | does right. Better that
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | it should do less.