To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
"You're certainly right... "
No , he aint.
"but you're taking ... ad nauseum on OSNews. "
Reading your answers , my toughts are that you clearly dont know , dont understand and are not qualified in any minimal way to discuss the subject.
"and I've never seen it done right on OSNews"
Read my post.
"Clearly, I was just ... completely unecessary."
You where not really clear or right , but that was about close enough.
"These proprietary ... installation (i.e. the LICENSE or README files). "
No , thats the problem today , most people think ( rather they dont at all , but its mostly due to there failed education about laws and rights ) that corporation have every right to screw you out of any rights they feel like at any time in any shape or form.
Most license are illegal and most readme are not law bidding , the problem is you have to go to court to get them revoked and thats a cost most people are not whilling to pay on there time and dime.




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).