[ Catching up on mail from ten days ago ] Carol A. Kunze writes: > Here is the theoretical difference between proprietary and traditional (GPL, > BSD) free software. With the former the user agrees to a license and does > not get title to the copy of the program. Without agreeing to the license > (and the use restrictions in it), the user has no legal right to use the > copy of the software that they possess but do not own. Basically, its a > license transaction where the user has no ownership in the copy of the > software they possess.
My understanding is that, if you have legally acquired a copy of the software, you have the right to run it. http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html Absent a contract otherwise, a user can do anything they want to their copy, including use it, modify it, give it away, or resell it to someone else. So why form a contract, then? To get a warranty disclaimer. To get the recipient to agree that they lose their patent grant if they sue for patent infringement. If we can get those things without a contract, that would be a perfect world. > > The question here is whether we should amend the Open Source > > Definition so that it is clear whether click-wrap licenses are > > allowable or not. We could go either way, but we want to hear from > > you first. Your opinions solicited, and engaged! > > OSI has already blessed licenses which are intended to be agreements or > contracts (see IBM license), so I'm confused about what the point is > here. And why OSI definition would have to change. Am I missing > something? They're not enforcable, at least as I understand it. -- -russ nelson http://russnelson.com | Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | businesses persuade 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | governments coerce Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3