Re: License as Contract
> "Enforceability is another question.
> Open Source licenses (GPL or any other)
> constitute legally binding contracts but
> have hardly been tested in the U.S.
> courts, much less outside the United
> Licenses are legally binding
> contracts? Says who, the people who
> wrote the license? Treating licenses as
> contracts is exactly what opponents of
> UCITA would like to prevent.
If you don't accept the license, then the author grants you absolutely NO RIGHTS to use the software in any way at all. This has nothing to do with the UCITA. The UCITA makes a contract binding when the user does certain things (like break a seal or install the software), whereas the GPL simply grants you rights to use the software IF YOU ACCEPT IT. It's a legally binding contract just like any other.
I'm not understanding this license. You can download the source RPM directly from their page, but doesn't that confilict with the license agreement earlier on the page? Specifically, these lines:
No Reverse Engineering. Customer may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the SOFTWARE, nor attempt in any other manner to obtain the source code.
This LICENSE will automatically terminate if Customer fails to comply with any of the terms and conditions of it. In such event, Customer must destroy all copies of the SOFTWARE and all of its component parts.
Doesn't this mean that as soon as you download the source RPM, you have to delete it?