Re: OpenCascade license opinion
Francesco Poli wrote:
> On the other hand, maybe the Open Cascade license counts as an
> agreement, since the copyright holder says that you have to accept
> the license in order to download the software (i.e.: in order to become
> a lawful acquirer). Then, after you accepted the license, you are bound
> to comply with it even if you only want to use the software (without
> redistributing, modifying, and so forth...).
Well, if you agree to a license and only then download the software,
your actions regarding the software are regulated by the software.
That's then your choice, just like it could be your choice to sign
a nondisclosure agreement which would force you to remain silent
on certain things.
The interesting question is when and how you agree to a license. If
the license is in the tarball, I don't think that downloading the
tarball counts as acceptance. You need to be able to read the license
before you can agree to it. If someone makes you go through a clickwrap
construct, then you're bound to the license.
If someone says "this software is GPLv2; click here to download" I
am not entirely sure if I agree to GPLv2 when I click there to download.
> Yes, because here no one said that I have to accept the GPL in order to
> download the program. As a consequence, I can be a lawful acquirer
> without having to accept the license: at that point, I can exercise my
> lawful acquirer rights, being in absense of any agreement to the
Don't forget to read John Halton's contributions to this thread.
If the phrase "lawful acquirer" is interpreted as "someone who acquires
the software in such a way that they have the right to use it", then
you only become a lawful acquirer after accepting the license.
(I'm still not entirely convinced this is the correct interpretation,
as it significantly reduces the value of the article, but it is
certainly a sensible interpretation)
> But maybe the following one, as well: the above reasoning is an attempt
> to better understand things and should not (yet) be taken as a set of
> conclusive statements on the subject.
This is law; there's no such thing as a conclusive statement here.
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
Arnoud blogt nu ook: http://blog.iusmentis.com/