Re: Bug#317359: kde: ..3'rd "Help"->"About $KDE-app" tab calls the GPL "License Agreement", ie; a contract.
On Tuesday 12 July 2005 01:18 pm, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 12:52:03PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 02:53:40PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 08:39:35AM -0500, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
> > > > Glenn, you said that "click-wrap" licenses are impractical and Marco
> > > > agreed with you. You said nothing about the license contents.
> > >
> > > Chris, a click-wrap license allowing redistribution would contain a
> > > clause requiring that distributors put recipients through a click-wrap
> > > as well.
> > It *could* contain such a clause.. If it did, then it would be non-free
> > for that reason. If the redistributor was free to remove the click-wrap
> > license, then as long as it met other requirements of DFSG, it could be
> > considered free.
> If the redistributor is free to distribute the software without click-
> wrapping people, then it's not a click-wrap license. If a copyright
> holder wants people to have to explicitly agree to their terms to use
> their software, then they have to either forbid redistribution or
> require that redistribution also get explicitly agreement.
That's not the definition of a click-wrap license. I, as the software
developer, can require positive verification that you accept whatever license
I so deem and yet allow you to redistribute without such verification. Not
entirely sure what the point would be, but it doesn't make it any less a
license through which one clicks.
> > I have seen software that has a click-thru GPL before. I can't remember
> > offhand what the software was, but Ive definitely seen it.
> That's not a click-wrap license, it's just the GPL stuffed into a dialog
> which falsely claims you have to explicitly agree to use the software,
> and that if you don't click "yes", you're not allowed to use it. That's
> an entirely different case, since you can just repackage it without the
> click-wrap and it goes away.
Falsely?! Perhaps you ought to study up on contracts a bit. The FSF can say
they think the GPL means whatever they want, but under United States law the
only people whose opinion count is the offerer and the acceptor. If I say
you can't use my GPL'ed software unless you click through the license, then
that is what it says.
And you still haven't responded to my earlier point that anyone who downloads
GPL'ed software must agree to the GPL. A click through license, if nothing
else, just informs those downloaders of their rights and responsibilities now
that under the license.