Legal soundness comes to open source distribution
Carol A. Kunze
ckunze at ix.netcom.com
Wed Aug 14 04:37:10 UTC 2002
David Johnson wrote:
> > I still do not understand why the OSI definition would have to change. Why
> > is the requirement for clickwrap any different from those licenses which
> > OSI has blessed and which in fact are intended to be agreements? Can
> > someone clue me in here?
> The main issue in my mind is not the simple click-wrap. That already exists in
> several forms for several Open Source products. Instead, the real issue (to
> me) is whether an Open Source license can require derivative works or
> downstream distribution to also use click-wrap.--
> David Johnson
> pgp public key on website
Oh. Now I get it. Thanks.
I'd have to ponder this more, but off the top of my head, it seems to me that
requiring a distributor to enter into a license contract with the user means that
the distributor should have a lawyer advising them. No offense to my own
profession, but I don't like that idea. I am much more comfortable have an
unlawyered developer use a non-contractual permission notice accompanying a sale
or a free transfer of title, than entering into a complex legal agreement.
In any event, I am going to have to go back and reread the approved licenses to
see which ones require entering into an agreement and the extent to which
downsteam distributors are required to do the same.
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
More information about the License-discuss