Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 16th Jul 2006 20:16 UTC, submitted by jake tate
Permalink for comment 143740
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/25/13 0:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 23:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-08
You're certainly right... but you're taking that statment out of context in hopes of starting one of my least favorite arguments, the one I dread so much, especially the amatuerish brand replayed ad nauseum on OSNews.
Seriously, if you're gunna do the whole GPL/BSD/CDDL debate thing, you gotta do it right, and I've never seen it done right on OSNews, so let's not do it, OK?
Clearly, I was just pointing out that click-through/prompt-through licensing is completely unecessary. These proprietary vendors can assert whatever license agreement they wish without user intervention, so long as it's included prominently in the installation (i.e. the LICENSE or README files).