[lkml]   [2005]   [Apr]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
    On Tuesday 12 April 2005 10:46 pm, Raul Miller wrote:
    > In essence, you're claiming that the difference between Davidson
    > & Associates v. Internet Gateway Inc (2004) and other cases such as
    > Softman v. Adobe (2001) and Novell, Inc. v. CPU Distrib., Inc. (2000)
    > is that the presence of a click-through is the determining factor.
    > Of course, it could just as easily be something else (for example,
    > admitting in court agreement with the license).

    Failure to have a click-through license means that there is no acceptance,
    which is a fundamental part of contract law. No acceptance, no contract, no
    exceptions. So yes, the difference in many of the click through license
    cases is whether the contract was something you couldn't avoid accepting.

    There is talk these days among tech contract drafters to develop a more
    universal method for electronic acceptance... probably something that will
    be written into the Uniform Commercial Code in the next few decades (behold,
    the speed of legal evolution!).


    Sean Kellogg
    2nd Year - University of Washington School of Law
    GPSS Senator - Student Bar Association
    Editor-at-Large - National ACS Blog []
    c: 206.498.8207    e:

    So, let go
     ...Jump in
      ...Oh well, what you waiting for?'s all right
        ...'Cause there's beauty in the breakdown
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-04-13 08:32    [W:0.020 / U:11.076 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site