I have published software under an MIT-style License, and I don't know if that makes a good contract or not, but I get the feeling that it's pretty vague, and that I might be better off to treat it as a permission notice and not enter into contracts with all my users.
This ties back to recent discussions of click-wrap contracts, pros and cons. However, let's put that debate aside and think mostly about the GPL, where there is no debate about whether or not it should be used as a contract. (RMS says it should not.) I have in the past presented my license terms on the "License Agreement" page provided by my install builder. This page has a note saying "if you do not accept, you cannot install this software". I have also seen the GPL presented that way. I still want to show the license terms during the install, but I don't want the user to see this as a click-wrap contract. To make it clear that "I" do not agree to enter into a contract with the person installing the software, I have been thinking about presenting it on a page marked "Information" rather than "License Agreement", and prefacing the license with a note like the following: "This software is protected by copyright law and is made available under the following license. The copyright holders do not intend for these license terms to form a contractual agreement." Does that make sense? Bruce (IANAL / YANML) -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3