Barak, I agree with your purpose, and completely disagree with your approach.
Beyond some problems with practical matters (I think patent law varies way too widely to provide accurate information without undue burden on the maintainers), it has two fundamental flaws: 1. It puts a burden on our users that I believe violates our social contract (in spirit, if not in letter). I think that we've long implied that software in main is "safe to use", and the users trust that we've interpeted the licenses such that they can use and modify the software without fear of reprisal. The click-through-license you've proposed violates that. 2a. It basically confirms that we think these patents are valid[1], and thus does not "stay true to our ideals". -or- 2b. It's an obviously cynical dodge of liability, and (to me, at least) is an even worse violation of our ideals. It's simply not worth it. Steve [1] I'm not sure I'd argue that all software (actually algorithm) patents are inherently invalid[2], just that the US Patent Office isn't competent to judge "unobvious" or "prior-art". [2] Unlike "business-process" patents, which are completely bogus. -- Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read every list I post to.)
