Thomas Lockhart wrote:
> > 8) "To be integrated with the software in such a way that this license
> > must be seen before downloading can occur".
> > Umm, can all the laywers please just butt out? Every other open-source
> > package in the universe just relies on a licence file in the home
> > directory. You going to try and stop people downloading with clicking a
> > licence agreement? How you going to handle mirrors? Or are you not
> > going to mirror any more? What about Red Hat el al?
> Good point. Not exactly sure why this was suggested, but the American
> courts are *full* of cases where the plaintif said that they "didn't
> really know" something that should have been obvious.
My dos centavos of an alternate solution:
Upon a sucessful install, and/or when opening template1, spit this out on
screen. This means that to *use* the product, they must see the license
at least once.
> So the intent was, as stated, to *reinforce* what we already believe to
> be true (including yourself). The recently-enacted UCITA law was
> (afaict) intended to protect, perhaps wrongly imho, commercial software
> companies from liability claims
Even liability of their own making, and negligence... which might be why
it was hotly contested, and possibly struck down soon.... is it written
in such a way as to be enforcable if UTOCA is struck down?
-Bop
--
Brought to you from iBop the iMac, a MacOS, Win95, Win98, LinuxPPC machine,
which is currently in MacOS land. Your bopping may vary.
