[Starson17]

Originally Posted by Captain Chaos

You clearly misunderstand the nature of copyright licences like the GPL and don't appreciate the difference between a copyright licence and a contract (like a EULA)

I don't want to be argumentative, but you are the one who doesn't understand this. A copyright license is just a specific type of contract. An EULA and the GPL are both contracts and copyright licenses. There's no real difference in what they are. The difference lies in who they apply to and in the obligations imposed.

so you think you are gaining some kind of protection or advantage by making people check a checkbox.

My personal opinion is that it's very desirable to let people know what they can and can't do. The checkbox serves as an indication to Kovid and all the other developers that the user has, at a minimum, had a chance to read the GPL. If the user does no more than run the program, then he has no obligations, but if he does more than that, and Kovid has worked very hard to make that easy, by modifying the program, then the checkbox guarantees that the user has actually agreed to the terms of the GPL. What's wrong with that? If the user doesn't wish to modify or distribute, he can read the GPL and find out he has no obligations to fulfill. If he wants to do more, he can read the GPL and find out under what conditions it applies and what obligations he undertakes.

in reality it is completely meaningless and makes no difference to the legal position of anyone, you or the user. All it does is make people jump through unnecessary hoops, and unfairly deny people who don't agree with the GPL the possibility to use the program.

Ouch! I'm with Kovid 100% on this. If a user doesn't agree with the GPL, let him go elsewhere.

Contrary to what you say, it is entirely permissible for someone to disagree with the GPL, and still legally use the program.

Kovid has the right to set whatever terms he wants for people to use his work. If he wants users to check the box that says they accept the GPL, he can require that. He can require that, even if accepting the GPL imposes no obligations on the end user who merely wants to run the program. The GPL doesn't require the end user who merely runs the program to accept it, but Kovid can certainly make that requirement (and personally I like it).

If they redistribute the program in violation of the GPL, you can sue them, even if they have not "accepted" the GPL.

You're getting into dangerous territory now. Yes, Kovid can bring suit for copyright infringement if someone copies his work without accepting the GPL. The GPL claims to be "accepted" merely by modifying or redistributing, so there might be an argument about whether the GPL applies. Kovid has decided to at least partially avoid that possible "argument" by requiring all to accept the GPL. That's his right, and avoiding that argument is one benefit of requiring all to accept the GPL.

In fact, even if someone downloads your program, unpacks it without using the installer (so they don't have to "accept" the GPL), changes it and redistributes those changes in violation of the GPL, you can still sue them, even thought they have not "accepted" the GPL. The GPL applies to them whether they like it or not, because (like it says itself) it is the only thing granting them the right to redistribute, and it places conditions on that redistribution.

This is the "argument" he avoids because the license is up front and accepted by all who run it. If the box got checked, it's hard to claim that the user didn't know about the GPL, and it's hard to claim that the GPL wasn't accepted.

Having a checkbox there does not offer you any additional protection or other advantage.

I disagree. Even if I thought it offered zero legal advantage (I don't), I'd still think it was a good idea to display the GPL and require acceptance. Anyone who is so allergic to the GPL that they won't agree to it when it imposes no obligations on them can look elsewhere, as far as I'm concerned.