Legal soundness comes to open source distribution

[Ian Lance Taylor]

Russell Nelson <nelson at crynwr.com> writes:

> The question here is whether we should amend the Open Source
> Definition so that it is clear whether click-wrap licenses are
> allowable or not.  We could go either way, but we want to hear from
> you first.  Your opinions solicited, and engaged!

Personally, I would say that a click-wrap license can be an open
source license.  Perhaps more to the point, I think that an open
source license can mandate an appropriate click-wrap in any derivative
work.

I see this as an extension of GPL 2(c), which says that an interactive
program is required to display a copyright notice and a notice saying
that there is no warranty.  That is, the GPL specifies that there are
certain specific changes which one is not permitted to make, and those
changes are related to informing the user of their rights.  While a
click-wrap license is not precisely the same thing, I think it is
sufficiently similar that a license which required a click-wrap could
be considered to be open source.  (I of course assume that it meets
all the other conditions.)

Ian
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3