Re: Bug#317359: kde: ..3'rd "Help"->"About $KDE-app" tab calls the GPL "License Agreement", ie; a contract.
On Wednesday 13 July 2005 10:32 pm, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 10:07:49PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > I'm talking about copyright infringement. Maybe I'm the only one?! The
> > question is whether its "okay" to mandate acceptance of the GPL at
> > download. I am suggesting that you have to agree to it in order to avoid
> > copyright infringement. Hence, if you have to agree the GPL to copy it
> > off the server in the first place, a "click-wrap" license is no more
> > non-free than just simply attacting the license as part of the COPYING
> > file.
>
> No, the question is whether it's free to mandate *explicit*, click-through
> acceptance of the GPL at (download, install, whatever) time. (The question
> of whether it's acceptable to mandate agreement to a contract at all, and
> whether the GPL does so, is unrelated.)
>
> There's a world of difference between 1: requiring that a person agree to
> something, but allowing that agreement to be expressed implicitly, through
> conduct (eg. by doing something which only the license allows), and 2:
> requiring that a person (and all recipients of the program from that
> person, and so on) indicate his agreement by displaying the license and
> refusing to install unless a button is clicked. #2 is what's in question,
> and requiring #2 is infinitely more invasive and problematic than #1.
>
> I don't know how you can keep claiming that #1 == #2; they have nothing
> in common.
I am so confused. #1 allows a licensor to impose all manner of terms without
giving actual notice to the licensee, whereas #2 at least gives the licensee
a chance. The warranty provisions are a great example. The GPL rejects all
implied warranties, but doesn't tell a licensee it does so unless they go to
the trouble of reading the COPYING file. How does displaying the license
first and requiring folks say "yes, I understand" more problematic or
invasive?
Believe me, I understand the visceral reaction to click-wrap licenses. I have
had a lot of debates with law professors on the issue of whether click-wrap
licenses are a "good thing" since they postpone term presentation until far
after money has changed hands. 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.
--
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: