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 > contrary. Don't forget to read John Halton's contributions to this thread. http://people.debian.org/~terpstra/message/20071221.092547.8c15d022.nl.html 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 -- 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/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]