I want to summarize what we have discussed on click-wrap because the issue is significant from the standpoint of the legal standing of open source licenses, and so I can include proposed responses in our research project on the OSD.
It is my understanding that the issue initially involved the approval of a license, not a change to the OSD. The discussion of click-wrap then considered whether the fact that adding indicia of mutual assent to website agreements like open source licenses (e.g., a mouse click from the user) might have adverse implications for the position that open source licenses are "non-contractual" licenses. There was also some discussion concerning whether click-wrap conditions imposed on downstream or sub-licensees is practical (it may be difficult to implement). Finally, some raised the question whether the click-wrap condition is doomed to failure in cases where distribution is packaged with multiple programs carrying distinct licenses. Is this a fair summary? Rod ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Carol A. Kunze" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 12:00 AM Subject: Re: Legal soundness comes to open source distribution > On Tuesday 13 August 2002 08:30 pm, Carol A. Kunze wrote: > > > You have to OWN the copy. When I say that in a proprietary license the > > licensor reserves title to the copy, I am saying the licensor takes the > > view that the user does not OWN the copy. > > ... If you buy a > > house you can do what you want with it, if you rent it you only get the > > rights your lease give you. > > This is where the big disconnect occurs between the user and the > manufacturer/licensor. When I rent a house, I KNOW that I am renting a house. > But with software I have no clue. I have undergone every single motion of > purchasing a product, obtained a sales receipt that itemizes a copy fo the > software, yet I do not own it. Moreover, I don't even know this fact until > the first time I try to use it. > > I am of the archaic and jurassic opinion that law that cannot be understood by > the average layman is bad law. When the average consumer thinks they are > buying a copy of Windows when they are not, because the law says they > haven't, then the law is an accomplice to fraud. > > Skipping back to the middle of the last paragraph... > > >The payment that is made is for a license to USE the software. > > >From where I sit, it seems like the user is purchasing the right to VIEW the > license. Only when they actually view the license and subsequently agree to > it, do they gain the right to use the software. > > > I still do not understand why the OSI definition would have to change. Why > > is the requirement for clickwrap any different from those licenses which > > OSI has blessed and which in fact are intended to be agreements? Can > > someone clue me in here? > > The main issue in my mind is not the simple click-wrap. That already exists in > several forms for several Open Source products. Instead, the real issue (to > me) is whether an Open Source license can require derivative works or > downstream distribution to also use click-wrap. > > -- > David Johnson > ___________________ > http://www.usermode.org > pgp public key on website > -- > license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 > -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3