On Friday 03 November 2006 01:24, Don Armstrong wrote: > Setting up wrapper terms and/or clickwraps that cannot be removed > contravenes §6: > > 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the > Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the > original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject > to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further > restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted > herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third > parties to this License. > > If they can be removed, then that's fine; have them removed by > someone, and do the initial distribution without the extra terms.
Hmmm... first, I'm fairly certain these terms cannot be removed. The copyright holder made that pretty clear with the following statement: ---------------------- IF YOU DO NOT ACCEPT ALL THE TERMS OF THIS LICENCE [sic], EDINBURGH GRANTS NO LICENCE [sic] TO USE SOFTWARE, AND THEREFORE YOU SHOULD CLICK ON THE 'REJECT' BUTTON TO EXIT THIS PROCESS. ---------------------- Avoiding the click wrap means you have not accepted ALL the terms of the license (warrent/waiver provisions) and thus you have not received a grant. > > I will be honest, it's not something I've given a lot of thought > > to... but I'd like to understand your arguments against wrapping the > > GPL in additional terms. > > There's nothing wrong with wrapping the GPL in additional terms; the > question is whether or not they can be removed. [It's much like adding > additional permissions to the GPL; there's nothing wrong with them, so > long as they can be removed.] Now, as for the portion of the GPL that you site as makes wrapping inappropriate unless they can be removed. The relevant sentence appears to be.... ---------------------- You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. ---------------------- But that doesn't say you cannot impose further restrictions in general, only those which restrict rights granted by the GPL. So I'll re-ask my question... what part of the GPL prohibits a more explicit waiver of *liability* and *warranty* than already included in the GPL? -Sean -- Sean Kellogg e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] w: http://blog.probonogeek.org/ So, let go ...Jump in ...Oh well, what you waiting for? ...it's all right ...'Cause there's beauty in the breakdown
