Alternative to click wrap license

[Sunnanvind Fenderson]

Mahesh T Pai <paivakil at vsnl.net> writes:
> 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.

I see.

Well, then I don't know a suggestion (other than that I hope the open
source initiative would choose to discuss this with the FSF or Debian
before making a decision), so I'll stay out of this. Thanks for reading.

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

That's what I said.

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