[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#122929: wpoison, is it okay?

  I've been following the discussion, and it looks like wpoison, if
determined free, will have the dubious distinction of being the first
program in main (that I know of) with a clickwrap license that attempts
to control use.  (namely, it requires every user [0] to display the wpoison
logo and link to the wpoison web page from their site [1])

  Oddly enough, though, I can't find a clause in the DFSG excluding this
sort of license.  I'm somewhat surprised, actually; maybe it's just
because clickwrap licenses tend to be so onerous that they fail one of
the other points anyway.

  I'm not a lawyer, though, so I'll butt out now.  Maybe you should ask


  [0] and, apparently, every website which "makes reference to this
  software"; I guess I'm causing lists.debian.org to violate wpoison's
  license with this message?  That sounds like nonsense to me..

  [1] the intent seems to be something like the clauses that require
  credit to the original authors to be given in derivatives; is there
  any way you could twist a website using wpoison into being a
  derivative work?

/-------------------- Daniel Burrows <dburrows@debian.org> -------------------\
|                  Fate always wins...                                        |
|                  at least, when people stick to the rules.                  |
|                    -- Terry Pratchett, _Interesting Times_                  |
\------- (if (not (understand-this)) (go-to http://www.schemers.org)) --------/

Reply to: