ESST license

[Parson, Dale E (Dale)]

The thing that strikes me about this clause upon further
reflection, is that although you can run the software
without manipulating source, reading documentation, or
otherwise becoming aware of the license, that doesn't
seem to be a genuine problem for the person running
the software.

The license condition in that case is basically unenforceable.
I agree that having an unenforceable condition does
not make for a good condition, but it doesn't seem
to create a problem for a person running the software.

To restate the following in a logical (although perhaps
not legalistic) form:
 
> > This software is provided subject to the following terms
> > and conditions, which you should read carefully before
> > using the software. Using this software indicates your
> > acceptance of these terms and conditions.  If you do not
> > agree with these terms and conditions, do not use the
> > software. 
> 
> Not valid over here.  You can run software without a license, so
> mandatory acceptance of the license does not work.

A superficial reading of the above might be modeled as

1A. IF use(this software) THEN accept(these terms)		IF A THEN B

being logically equivalent to

1B. (NOT use(this software)) OR accept(these terms)		(NOT A) OR B

But it is not logically possible to accept something of which
one is not aware. Interpretation 1 is faulty. I can be aware
of something and not accept it, but I cannot be unaware of something
and accept it. Acceptance requires awareness.

2A. IF accept(these terms) THEN aware(these terms)

2B. (NOT accept(these terms)) OR aware(these terms)		equivalent

So, if we grant that acceptance requires awareness, then 2B
asserts that if one is "NOT aware(these terms)," making
the right half of 2B's disjunction false, then the left
half must be true, i.e., (NOT accept(these terms)).
If one is unaware of the terms, one necessarily does not
accept them.

I think a more realistic reading of the agreement paragraph is:

3A. IF (aware(these terms) AND use(this software)) THEN accept(these terms)

again equivalent to

3B. (NOT (aware(these terms) AND use(this software))) OR accept(these terms)

DeMorgan allows us to drive the NOT inward as follows:

3C. (NOT aware(these terms)) OR (NOT use(this software)) OR accept(these
terms)

One can be unaware of the terms or not use the software or accept the terms.
Any one of these 3 conditions satisfies the agreement.

I suppose a more forceful license could modify "in the comments as well
as in the documentation" for source distributions and "in the documentation"
for binary distributions to include "in the software output, with
execution conditional on acceptance" in both cases
-- forcing the person running the software to be made aware of it and to
choose whether to (accept(these terms) AND continue(running)) OR
abort(running),
but why bother? As it is, the unaware user has no further obligation.

If the user modifies source or documentation, the user will be made
aware (by the license notice contained therein). Beyond requiring
the notice to appear in source and documentation, the main thrust
of the terms is to limit liability. Perhaps a programmer using the
software should force the terms into the user's face with an
"AGREE OR ABORT" decision a la commercial licenses. Would that
settle the problem? I don't see open source licenses requiring that.
If it's just a matter that the language of the terms seems stronger than
is logically possible, it's a poor statement, but not particularly
a problem for a user.

Take care.

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