[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:0.067 / U:1.812 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site