Re: Is OSL 2.0 compliant with DFSG?
On Sun, Apr 11, 2004 at 11:19:11AM +0200, Anders Torger wrote:
> Many has said that because of this, GPL is not enforcable in most
> software packages, since they do not have click-wrap installation
> procedures.
http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/lu-12.html
http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/lu-13.html
Eben Moglen's professional legal opinion disagrees, and so I'm inclined
to consider this FUD until it has some legal competence behind it.
Click-wrap licenses are only used on licenses placing conditions on
users which are beyond copyright law, which the GPL does not do.
Further, I believe that no license requiring a click-wrap can be free
(by the DFSG, or my own personal opinion), since it's an unreasonable
burden on distribution and users. I'm writing software that uses a dozen
libraries, many with slightly different terms (GPL, LGPL, MIT, X11, etc).
It's completely unreasonable to expect users to read, understand and agree
to half a dozen licenses on installation, which is what would happen if
all of those were click-wrap. I can hardly imagine how much reading people
would have in front of them when installing Linux, if all of the licenses
in their distribution were click-wrap.
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: