Quote:
Originally Posted by Starson17
It's unnecessary, but requiring acceptance is harmless and somewhat beneficial. The GPL has nothing in it that applies to the end user, so accepting it imposes no obligations on the end user. However, by displaying it, the end user is advised of when it applies, what action will cause it to apply to him and of his obligations if he redistributes it - particularly if he modifies it before redistribution. I don't see that as bad or "wrong." How will the user know when it applies if he isn't told?
|
It's not the displaying I object to (much), it's the mandatory "acceptance" of it.
It is wrong in the sense that "acceptance" has no meaning in the case of the GPL (or any other copyright licence). Whether you "accept" it or not, you are still bound by it, so what's the point in asking for a meaningless and superfluous "acceptance" of something when it makes no difference?
In other words: whether you "accept" the GPL or not, you are always allowed to use the program, and you are always bound by the terms of the GPL when you redistribute the program. So the choice is meaningless, and it seems to me that by default we should not have to do meaningless things.
You could even make the point that by requiring acceptance of the GPL you are actually
violating the GPL, since the GPL itself states that acceptance is not required to be allowed to use the program. I'm not sure if that argument flies though, since the author
himself isn't bound by the GPL.
But what is true is that it is unfair and unnecessarily restrictive not to allow the installation to proceed if you don't "accept" the GPL, since even if you don't "accept" it, you are still allowed to use the program! If you don't agree with the terms of the GPL it just means that you can't redistribute it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starson17
but that might not even be possible with the way the Windows installer is set up.
|
I know it's possible; I've seen plenty of (.msi) installers that present the GPL (or some other copyright license) to you with a simple Next button, instead of a checkbox you have to check first. It would be a pretty poor installer framework if it didn't allow for something as basic as that!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starson17
I doubt it's worth the bother to program it, even if it's possible to do.
|
Well, you say you agree with me that it's annoying. I'm sure it would be very easy to change; I imagine it's just a fairly trivial change in an installer script somewhere. So why not make the change if it costs so little and removes a legitimate annoyance?
I'd even be willing to do it myself, if someone will point me in the right direction!
