On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 10:23:14PM -0500, Christofer C. Bell wrote: > So what you're saying is not that the contents of the license are the > problem, but that fact that the user is required to acknowledge that > the license has been displayed to them is the burdensome requirement? > Is that right?
Not exactly. Displaying one or two click-wraps isn't (too) onerous. Displaying a hundred is (eg. a Linux distribution). If I port the software to a system with a limited display (eg. an ethernet switch or a wristwatch), click-wrap is impossible. (Normally, I'd just print out the license and include it in the documentation in that case.) The problem is that a click-wrap license (or at least, the kind of click-wrap license I'm concerned with here) would say something like "you must ensure that all recipients are displayed this license and click a [yes, I agree] button before sending/installing/running this software", and that's overly burdensome. (Part of the reason this tangent is difficult to discuss is because, as far as I know, there have been no click-wrap licenses posed to d-legal, so we don't have anything concrete to analyze and we're debating entirely in theoreticals. It might be best to shelve this discussion until one comes along.) -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
