Alternative to click wrap license

[Mahesh T Pai]

Sunnanvind Fenderson wrote:

>If users disagree with the copyright license they must refrain from
>distributing the program - lest they are in violation of copyright
>law.
>
>This is being disputed in some courts, accepted in some. It's unclear
>what law it uses. Contract law?  Can I say "By reading this sentence,
>you agree to obey me"? To what extent are clickwraps valid?
>
>Clickwraps were introduced because those companies wanted to place
>restrictions on the use of the program, with an EULA.
>
>With free, open source software, we want to *reduce* restrictions.
>  
>
We also want to reduce the threat of users suing us.  Therefore, click
wrap is about product liability.  When we tell the courts that we are
not liable because we have a contract to which the plaintiff has
assented to, according to which we are not liable, the courts will also
ask for proof that the user accepted those terms.   He cannot accept
those terms unless he was told of them. Can he?  This is where click
wrap comes in.  CW has nothing to do with copyright/left.

And therefore, neither the "replacement dialog" suggested by you, nor
the "click wrap notice" suggested by Mr Rosen earlier on this list would
be of any help to disclaim product liability.

Regarding protection of the programmers' copyrights,  unless the user
accepts the license, he (the user) cannot distribute the software, anyway.

Mahesh T Pai


________________________________________________________________________
Want to sell your car? advertise on Yahoo Autos Classifieds. It's Free!!
       visit http://in.autos.yahoo.com
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3