it has been ZERO DAYS since I have had to agree to the GPL
-
what's happening here is that there is a requirement to alert the user that the code is GPL-licensed: You want them to know they have extra rights!
But you just need to tell them. You can say "hey this is GPLed, read LICENSE.TXT for more details" on the front page.
-
and the other reason is that installers often have a "license page" template, which is intended for commercial software that uses a EULA you have to agree to before installing it.
-
@[email protected] I noticed in the Wireshark installer they replaced the "Agree" button to "Noted" in the license page
-
which is not required for GPL. You don't need to agree to the GPL to use GPL software: "agreeing" grants you no extra rights. You already have a right to run GPL'd software.
-
(according to the FSF, sticking a GPL-EULA in your installer is wrong but not illegal to do, because it's legally meaningless)
-
but once you notice installers doing this, you will see it everywhere. So many GPL'd programs out there are pointlessly asking people to agree to a non-EULA
-
@foone
Making people agree to the GPL is my kink. -
the most TL;DR I can make for this:
The GPL is a license for REDISTRIBUTORS, not USERS.
If you are not planning to modify and redistribute this code, the fact it is GPL has no legal effect on you, and you don't need to read it, let alone "agree to it" -
but if I was gonna rewrite this program or make my own installer for it, I'd download their SOURCE CODE not their INSTALLER
-
the GPL is for CODING and DISTRIBUTION not RUNNING
-
@silvermoon82 I'm kinkshaming
-
@Baa yeah, a couple installers have done that sort of thing. Just take off the "I agree" checkbox and make it a Next or a "noted" button
-
@Baa at least one of them has done it because I've yelled about this enough
-
it probably doesn't help that "making a windows installer" is one of the last and most-neglected steps of making an open source program
-
la fillette révolutionnairereplied to Foone🏳️⚧️ last edited by@foone it's a good thing to inform users that the software they're running is free software and that they can modify and redistribute it if they wish. asking them to agree to the license to use the software is the useless part but i think it's just that there are those installer frameworks where you just stick the license into a template or something
-
everyone else can just install the deb/rpm or type something into whatever portage-system they're using this week
-
Amber 🌸replied to la fillette révolutionnaire last edited by
@[email protected] @[email protected] yeah i definitely agree this looks like your generic self extracting installer toolkit
-
@foone I’m gonna write a license that looks almost identical to the GPL (maybe “CPL” would look the closest?) and have it be the same text as the GPL, except that—well below the fold—Foone has to agree to it whereas everyone else just needs to be aware of it
-
@listrophy AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
-
@foone the temptation to devils-advocate this is incredibly strong
