Re: Is the University of Edinburgh clickwrap GPL DFSG-free?
On Friday 03 November 2006 01:24, Don Armstrong wrote:
> Setting up wrapper terms and/or clickwraps that cannot be removed
> contravenes §6:
>
> 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
> Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
> original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject
> to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further
> restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted
> herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third
> parties to this License.
>
> If they can be removed, then that's fine; have them removed by
> someone, and do the initial distribution without the extra terms.
Hmmm... first, I'm fairly certain these terms cannot be removed. The
copyright holder made that pretty clear with the following statement:
----------------------
IF YOU DO NOT ACCEPT ALL THE TERMS OF THIS LICENCE [sic], EDINBURGH GRANTS NO
LICENCE [sic] TO USE SOFTWARE, AND THEREFORE YOU SHOULD CLICK ON THE 'REJECT'
BUTTON TO EXIT THIS PROCESS.
----------------------
Avoiding the click wrap means you have not accepted ALL the terms of the
license (warrent/waiver provisions) and thus you have not received a grant.
> > I will be honest, it's not something I've given a lot of thought
> > to... but I'd like to understand your arguments against wrapping the
> > GPL in additional terms.
>
> There's nothing wrong with wrapping the GPL in additional terms; the
> question is whether or not they can be removed. [It's much like adding
> additional permissions to the GPL; there's nothing wrong with them, so
> long as they can be removed.]
Now, as for the portion of the GPL that you site as makes wrapping
inappropriate unless they can be removed. The relevant sentence appears to
be....
----------------------
You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the
rights granted herein.
----------------------
But that doesn't say you cannot impose further restrictions in general, only
those which restrict rights granted by the GPL. So I'll re-ask my
question... what part of the GPL prohibits a more explicit waiver of
*liability* and *warranty* than already included in the GPL?
-Sean
--
Sean Kellogg
e: skellogg@u.washington.edu
w: http://blog.probonogeek.org/
So, let go
...Jump in
...Oh well, what you waiting for?
...it's all right
...'Cause there's beauty in the breakdown
Reply to: