[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#317359: kde: ..3'rd "Help"->"About $KDE-app" tab calls the GPL "License Agreement", ie; a contract.

On Saturday 09 July 2005 01:38 am, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 01:50:27PM +0530, Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
> > AFAIK, RMS  & FSF  are of view  that software  under the GPL  does not
> > require an  `I agree' button. Do not  have a link ready  on hand right
> > now.
> That's what he means by "agreed to by conduct"; for example, if
> the only means you have to redistribute a work is a contract, and
> you redistribute it, your conduct is (may be, IANAL) indicating
> agreement to the contract (even though you didn't sign anything or
> click any buttons).
> (It's not clear whether that applies here, since you don't need any
> special license to simply use software, so using the software doesn't
> seem to indicate agreement to anything; this is the point of Sean's
> argument I'm trying to understand.)

Well, like I said...  I can't fault your logic.  The GPL's use provisions, or 
more accurately its express disclaimer there of, do not require consent.  
BUT, everyone has to consent to the GPL when you download a copy of it.  By 
that conduct they are agreeing to the GPL and right along with it, they agree 
to the warranty disclaimer provisions.

I suppose you could say that someone who didn't install it, but came upon the 
software already installed, is not bound by those agreements...  but 
certainly the first person who apt-get install PACKAGE has consented to the 
GPL in an agreement like fasion.

> I think there's wide agreement here that forced click-wrap licenses
> are non-free, and very impractical.  I've seen installers in Windows
> requiring an explicit agreement for the GPL; that's just confusion,
> or maybe people dropping the GPL into a default "paste your license
> here" installer template ...

While VERY off point, how is a click-wrap license non-free?  Requiring someone 
to agree to a license before they use the software doesn't seem to go against 
any of DFSGs.  Obviously what you say IN the license makes a whole heep of 
difference...  but I think that's a far cry from saying mandatory agreement 
is non-free.


Sean Kellogg
3rd Year - University of Washington School of Law
Graduate & Professional Student Senate Treasurer
UW Service & Activities Committee Interim Chair 
w: http://probonogeek.blogspot.com

So, let go
 ...Jump in
  ...Oh well, what you waiting for?
   ...it's all right
    ...'Cause there's beauty in the breakdown

Reply to: