Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.

[Sean Kellogg]

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

-- 
Sean Kellogg
2nd Year - University of Washington School of Law
GPSS Senator - Student Bar Association
Editor-at-Large - National ACS Blog [http://www.acsblog.org]
c: 206.498.8207    e: skellogg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
w: http://probonogeek.blogspot.com

So, let go
 ...Jump in
  ...Oh well, what you waiting for?
   ...it'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 majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/