why does allowing click-through licenses "just feel wrong" to me?

[Russell Nelson]

Brian Behlendorf writes:
 > Though, a click for a warranty disclaimer is the least of my concerns;
 > that someone would slide another term in there that was OSI-conformant but
 > still really silly would be easy for me to miss.

That's my concern also.  As long as it's questionable whether the
warranty disclaimer is valid, it's also questionable whether J. Random 
Injurious term is valid as well.

The problem here is the same as the problem with nuclear power:
there's a very small risk of a very large consequence.  Multiple the
two, and what do you get?  Hopefully a tolerable risk, but people just 
don't trust it.  Quick, now: what is 0.00000000000012373347 *
737832836436?  Is it a big number or a little number?

 > Right now, if a judge was asked to decide whether an open source
 > developer is liable for damages incurred by an end-user, I'd be
 > dollars to donuts he'd compare the "injurious reliance" against the
 > lack of consideration and privity, and look at the *norm* in this
 > industry where it's quite clear that open source developers are not
 > responsible for the consequences of use of their work, and conclude
 > that in no situation should such a developer be liable just because
 > he didn't get explicit agreement to a warranty disclaimer.

Is that indeed how the decision will be made?  Or will it be made
based on what's written in UCITA?

 > I'm all for a law that says you get your money back if software
 > doesn't work...

That would certainly be the most sublime solution.

-- 
-russ nelson              http://russnelson.com |  New Internet Acronym:
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok |
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice |         IANAE
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | +1 315 268 9201 FAX   |  I Am Not An Economist
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3