[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 Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 07:01:25PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> 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.

A click-wrap license is a license which you have to agree to explicitly,
by clicking a button.  If I can redistribute the software without requiring
that of the recipient, it's not a click-wrap license.

(This is a semantic issue, and due to the fact that the vast majority of
click-wrap licenses are proprietary and allow no redistribution at all,
I think we're both just extrapolating the phrase in slightly different

> > 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.  

So now you're claiming that I have to explicitly, via click-wrap, signature,
etc., agree to the GPL, and that implicit agreement (eg. via conduct) is
insufficient?  Which clause says that?  You can say your license says
whatever you want, but that doesn't make it so.  (Of course, taking even
the clear word of a license over the confused word of a licensee is still
not necessarily a good idea, with the only final word being a court, but
a random contributor to the Linux kernel can't effectively claim "the GPL
means you have to send me $100 per system" and make it so, forcing everyone
to strip out his part of the code or pay up.)

> 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.

I ignored this because it was assuming consensus about whether agreement
is needed to download and use GPL software, and you know that there isn't
one; it seemed like you were trying to buy points for your claims by
stating them as assumed fact, which is tiresome.

In context of this message: a click-through license, where click-through-
on-redistribution is mandatory, imposes significant technical hurdles (much
more than "nothing else").  If it's not mandatory, then it's not a freedom
issue, and not interesting; remove it and be done with it.

(I've pushed this response to a more appropriate subthread.)

Glenn Maynard

Reply to: