On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 08:39:35AM -0500, Christofer C. Bell wrote: > Glenn, you said that "click-wrap" licenses are impractical and Marco > agreed with you. You said nothing about the license contents.
Chris, a click-wrap license allowing redistribution would contain a clause requiring that distributors put recipients through a click-wrap as well. That *is* license contents; it's a specific and onerous restriction on redistribution. That would not only require that "apt-get install" display and confirm licenses, but also "apt-get source", and would probably prohibit anonymous CVS and source tarballs on anonymous FTP entirely. If click-wrap is desired, then the copyright holder wants explicit (not implicit, "by conduct") agreement, and click-wrap would be required by the license at every place the software is distributed. > I'm unclear how on the one hand you can say they are impractical > (click-wrap licenses) and then call absurd someone's agreement with > that contention. Can you please clarify this disconnect? It's absurd to say that a license is impractical, and to cliam in the same breath that the license is free. -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
