Click-Thru Licensing on Open Source Software?

Russ Nelson writes "At the July OSI board meeting last week, we approved the Academic Free License (think MIT/BSD/X11/Apache with a patent grant) and we sent four licenses back for reconsideration. Here's the hitch: we were asked to approve a license which includes a requirement for click-wrap. Read more to see why we're asking you about it. The submittor had already been asked if that requirement was a necessity. She said yes, because of various legal precedents. We consulted a few people and yes, it looks like a license without click-wrap is weaker at protecting your rights. So, folks, the lawyers are coming. The time is coming when you won't be able to distribute software unless you have presented the license to the user and their assent is necessary to access the software. Even free software. Our industry is maturing and we need to be more legally careful and rigorous. The question here is whether we should amend the Open Source Definition so that it is clear whether click-wrap licenses are allowable or not. We could go either way, but we want to hear from you first. Your opinions solicited, and engaged!" While I can understand some legal necessities are necessary in the software world, click-thru licenses have never, and will never, make sense to me. Maybe commercial software has soured me on the concept, but I dislike agreeing to something before I even get a chance to use it.

Comments

Re:what about server software

[sysadmn]

I will sit and click through about 600 EULA-s?
Even through GNU EULA-s?

Please refer to these agreements by a name which respects the hard work and tireless efforts of the FSF. They should properly be called GNU/EULA, also abbreviated GNULA.

No Your Honor...

[MeNeXT]

I did not see that the copyrights to this book belonged to some one because the cover was ripped off...May I go now?...Thank you!

Paradox! You have to swallow your own tail...

[Hater's Leaving, The]

Say I wished to distribute a working copy of some JavaScript code on my web-site.

So I'd need to have a click-through before the JavaScript was served.

So I'd have to write a new page and maybe a new script to handle that click-through.

However, being the stubborn GNU-head that I am, I'd insist that this click-though page should be open source too.

So I'd need a click-through before that page was served.

Lather, rinse, repeat...

THL.

Re:click-wrap limit

[Bobo_The_Boinger]

I SECOND THIS, THERE SHOULD BE A REQUIREMENT THAT ALL SENTENCES MUST USE THE GENERALLY ACCEPTED USE OF CAPITALIZATION IN THE LANGUAGE OF PRESENTATION. I DON'T KNOW WHY LAWYERS LIKE TO MAKE EVERYTHING EVEN HARDER TO READ THAN IT NORMALLY IS.

Hmmmm, actually maybe lawyers just get really pumped up while writing the documents. I can just see it now:
(Lawyer 1) Oh yeah! I NAILED another EULA Joe!
(Lawyer 2) Oh baby! I can tell, look at all your caps man!
(Lawyer 1) Yeah, whoever was outside my office MUST have heard me screaming about the henceforths, and the hereafters, and the forthwiths.
(Lawyer 2) Hell, who DOESN'T feel like yelling about those!
(Lawyer 1) Well, I gotta go work on some warning labels on toys advising consumers not to stick them in different orifices.
(Lawyer 2) Rock on man!

Re:whats wrong with a click thru license ?

[brain159]

Or say, write the documents in laymans terms such as the authors of THE NEW TESTAMENT saw fit to do.

Oh, great, licenses in Greek, that's all we need :P