Alternative to click wrap license
sunnanvind at fenderson.com
Sat Aug 10 14:28:13 UTC 2002
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.
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
More information about the License-discuss