Re: Mandatory click wraps trivially non-free
On Thursday 14 July 2005 02:28 pm, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > On Thursday 14 July 2005 12:56 am, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > On Wed, 13 Jul 2005, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > > > But no one has presented a cogent argument about how mandating that
> > > > people actually agree to the terms of the GPL poses a threat to the
> > > > DFSG.
> > >
> > > Surely you can see that requiring the clickwrap license to be viewed
> > > by the user is a serious restriction both on modification (3) and a
> > > field of endeavor (7); especially as there's no "clickwrap license"
> > > over RSS protocol.
> > The original downloader (slashdot) would be obliged to click on the
> > 'I accept the GPL terms' because the original author's chose to put
> > it in there. But there is nothing stoping slashdot from ripping out
> > the clickwrap before they put load it onto their system.
> We're discussing two different things then. If the click wrap can be
> removed from the program, then I submit that it is not mandatory, nor
> a requirement of "actual manifestation of assent." It's merely a
> dialog box that the author happened to have placed into their program
> because they felt it would be nice to have people click on a button.
Ah, agreement! Fantastic. There are some semantic differences between us,
but nothing worth quibbling over. Obviously the GPL prohibits a pop-up which
cannot be removed by a later distributor. My only contention was that as a
distributor, if I wanted extra assurance that those I was distributing to saw
the GPL, that I could have it pop up in my distributions.
3rd Year - University of Washington School of Law
Graduate & Professional Student Senate Treasurer
UW Service & Activities Committee Interim Chair
So, let go
...Oh well, what you waiting for?
...it's all right
...'Cause there's beauty in the breakdown