Should the GPL be Used as a Click-Wrap?

swillden asks: "I've come across an increasing number of GPL programs lately that display an EULA-style click-wrap agreement during installation. While not exactly wrong, this seems like a bad idea to me, since it perpetuates the idea that you must agree to some arbitrary set of conditions in order to install and use a piece of software. In this case the conditions are very liberal (there are none, really), but still it reinforces the notion that you can't install a package unless you agree. The FSF says that such click-wrapping is neither required nor forbidden but it seems like a bad idea to promote the click-wrap meme, even if the license is user-friendly. Does Slashdot have strong thoughts on this matter?"

Comments

Summary...

[Vo0k]

Click-wrap of GPL is one thing. Forcing you to click "agree" to install is another.
Display the license, fine. Don't write "by using this software you agree..." just "this software is distributed under the following conditions". And allow clicking "forward" without any prerequisites.

Re:Summary...

[Vo0k]

actually, writing in nice red bold letters "You don't have to agree to these terms to use this software" under the license block would create an interesting "WTF" situation where people would get interested in "what kind of license is that?" and possibly create some positive publicity.

Re:Summary...

[mctk]

The real WTF situation would be when people start reading those things carefully enough to have a WTF situation.

Re:Summary...

[doti]

Better yet, just something like this:

    THIS PROGRAM IS FREE FOR YOU TO USE

        Read the actual terms [ here ],
specially if you'll distribute or modify it.

                            [ CONTINUE ]

The [ here ] button opens the GPL text.
(I tried to add a box around the window,
but was not in the mood to fight the lame filter)

Re:Summary...

[TheSpoom]

Inevitably that would be read by some sleazy corporate types as saying that the software is effectively public domain and that they could do what they wanted with it, since they didn't have to agree to the GPL.

We both know this is incorrect and that the GPL is still binding on distribution, not usage, but it would generally cause trouble.

Re:Summary...

[mehemiah]

I second, I'd third but im only one person.

Re:Summary...

[BiggyP]

There was one windows FOSS installer, can't remember which app it belonged to, which replaced the 'I Agree' button with a 'Great!' or 'Cool!' button, to make it clearer that you don't actually need to agree to the license terms in order to use GPL'd software. In reality it didn't make things any clearer but it was a nice idea.

Re:Summary...

[swillden]

We both know this is incorrect and that the GPL is still binding on distribution, not usage, but it would generally cause trouble.

Only for as long as it took said corporate types to have a discussion with their attorney, after receiving a cease and desist letter from the software's copyright holder. There's a good reason that so few GPL disputes have made it anywhere near a courtroom, you know.

Re:Summary...

[stsp]

actually, writing in nice red bold letters "You don't have to agree to these terms to use this software" under the license block would create an interesting "WTF" situation

If your reasoning is that your definition of use does not include re-distribution, this should also be mentioned explicitely to avoid accidentally misguiding users who are unaware of the details of the GPL.

Otherwise, ever heard of gpl-violations.org?

Re:Summary...

[jZnat]

Someone needs to talk to Apple then because their standard .pkg installer provides an API to show an EULA for the user to agree to. Whenever I install free software on a Mac, I chortle when I see that I need to "accept the terms of the GPL" just to use the program when I know that's not true.

At least the licence is headed with "GNU General Public License" so I don't actually have to read it for the millionth time.

Re:Summary...

[omeg]

It needs to be made clear that you should be able to continue even if you disagree with the license. Disagreeing will still allow you to use it legally, but it simply prevents you from making adjustments to it. It should be possible to disagree and still continue installing.

Re:Summary...

[Jon Kay]

> THIS PROGRAM IS FREE FOR YOU TO USE

Except, it isn't, is it? If it's so free, then why is the GPL so long. Is it all preamble?

What if the recipient's idea of use is to spread the One True And Undeniable Cult of Emacs by handing out binary CDs at work? Oopsie!

It may seem free to people who believe that Free Software licenses maximize freedom, but remember you're a minority - most either don't understand the issue, or disagree with you. Certainly you can't ASSUME that everybody else will see a 339-line license as obvious freedom.

Re:Summary...

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no problem handing out or using binary CDs of unmodified emacs.

The only thing the GPL prevents is you handing out binaries of 'Jon Kay emacs'.

The freedom is for the person you distribute to, not you the distributor.

Re:Summary...

[kchrist]

It sounds like it's not Apple you want to talk to then, but the people who build OS X packages of GPL'd software.

It shouldn't be

[squiggleslash]

And it isn't really suitable for use as an EULA anyway.

Aside from people confusing strictly optional licenses (as the GPL is) with EULAs, the other major reason I can think of why people make it compulsory is that it contains a "No warranty" clause, and it's just easier to copy and paste the whole damned GPL than to work out, if you're not a lawyer, a form of words that will achieve that job.

If you come across software that does this, it is, of course, your legal right to redistribute a version that doesn't require agreement to the GPL to just install and run. So how big a problem this is in reality is open to question.

Re:It shouldn't be

[Anonymous Coward]

'Strictly optional licenses'?

I don't understand what you mean by that?

You can't just 'ignore' the GPL, can you?

Re:It shouldn't be

[SillyNickName4me]

You can't just 'ignore' the GPL, can you?

As long as you don't modify or derive from or distribute the software, yes you can quite ignore it.

Re:It shouldn't be

[IWannaBeAnAC]

You can't just 'ignore' the GPL, can you?

Well, as a user who does not re-distribute or modify the software, the GPL simply doesn't apply to you. So yes, you can just ignore it.

Re:It shouldn't be

[cortana]

Only if you subscribe to the theory that you don't need permission from an author to execute a work on your computer.

Re:It shouldn't be

[IWannaBeAnAC]

What theory says otherwise? I've never heard that before. If so, why wouldn't you need permission from the author to read a book too?

Re:It shouldn't be

[cortana]

Copyright law reserves the right of copying a work to the author of the work. You may not copy a work to your computer's disk, to its RAM, or portions thereof to its cache, processor and other components without permission.

You should read Free Culture for an understanding of why copyright controls everything in the digital age, particularly the "PROPERTY" chapter and especially pages 139 onwards.

Re:It shouldn't be

[IWannaBeAnAC]

Get real. I copy the text of a book to the back of my retina, and then onto my optic nerve, whenever I read a book, too.

I have actually read Free Culture, by the way. I don't remember reading anything that paranoid in it. I've been meaning to read it again sometime though, so I might start tonight ;-)

Re:It shouldn't be

[hitchhacker]

As long as you don't modify or derive from or distribute the software, yes you can quite ignore it.

You can modify and derive from it all you want and still ignore the license.
It's only if you decide to distribute those modifications that the GPL is relevant.
But.. INAL.

-metric

Re:It shouldn't be

[cortana]

The point is that copying an image to your retina is first of all not considered an act of copying, and second of all, naturally protected by the architecture of our physical world. This is different to the act of copying a work to your computer and executing it.

I'm sure Lessig knows of case law to back his statements up, he is a copyright lawyer after all. :)

Re:It shouldn't be

[IWannaBeAnAC]

Have you got a reference in Lessig's book?

Re:It shouldn't be

[Todd Knarr]

Not quite. See USC Title 17 Section 117 for details. 117(a)1 specifically says that it is not an infringement to make copies which are an essential step in utilizing a computer program. That means that both the copy made to the hard disk from the installation media and the copy made in RAM to execute are not infringing by law, regardless of what the copyright owner may claim. And if you raise the DMCA, see USC Title 117 1201(c)1 which says that nothing in the DMCA overrules any other portion of Title 117.

Re:It shouldn't be

[schon]

You may not copy a work to your computer's disk, to its RAM, or portions thereof to its cache, processor and other components without permission.

Your claim is completely and 100% incorrect.

Re:It shouldn't be

[Arker]

Copying a program into RAM from your hard drive to run it is "not copying" in exactly the same sense as copying it to your retina in order to read it is "not copying." Copyright law explicitly does not cover simply running a program, despite what MS wants you to believe.

Re:It shouldn't be

[Arker]

Yes, as long as you're not going to engage in activities which copyright law prohibits, you can ignore it. Simply using a program doesn't require a license. Distributing that program, or creating a derived work based on it, does.

Re:It shouldn't be

[SillyNickName4me]

You can modify and derive from it all you want and still ignore the license.
It's only if you decide to distribute those modifications that the GPL is relevant.
But.. INAL.

And I believe you are wrong because copyright law stops you from modifying and deriving from. The GPL however permits it. Consequentely, without accepting the GPL, copyright law applies and you are not allowed to modify or derive.

Re:It shouldn't be

[Curien]

Traditional copyright law only restricts distribution.
The DMCA added other stuff (eg, unauthorized decryption of a copyrighted work), but that's fairly recent and not universally applicable.

Re:It shouldn't be

[SillyNickName4me]

Please check for example http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106

106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works36

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

So, preparing derivative works is an exclusive right of the copyright holder.

Re:It shouldn't be

[Paul Crowley]

But then, so long as you don't redistribute the GPL grants you permission to do whatever you like anyway, so whether or not you've accepted it is moot.

Re:It shouldn't be

[SillyNickName4me]

But then, so long as you don't redistribute the GPL grants you permission to do whatever you like anyway, so whether or not you've accepted it is moot.

Not exactly. It only grants you those permissions if you accept it. You are correct in the sense that the GPL does not get you any additional obligations as long as you do not distribute anything.

This also makes that it is extremely unlikely that anyone is ever going to sue anyone over this, and may even help a fair use defence.

It is not 'moot' however because allowing this is the basic idea that brought us the GPL (being allowed to do whatever you want with the software including modifying it)

Re:It shouldn't be

[julesh]

Not quite. See USC Title 17 Section 117

Be aware that the user you're responding to is in the UK. The relevant law is the Copyrights Designs and Patents Act 1988 (as modified) whose equivalent section reads:

28A Making of temporary copies
Copyright in a literary work, other than a computer program or a database, or in a
dramatic, musical or artistic work, the typographical arrangement of a published edition,
a sound recording or a film, is not infringed by the making of a temporary copy which is
transient or incidental, which is an integral and essential part of a technological process
and the sole purpose of which is to enable -
(a) a transmission of the work in a network between third parties by an
intermediary; or
(b) a lawful use of the work;
and which has no independent economic significance.

(Emphasis mine)

Re:It shouldn't be

[julesh]

Your claim is completely and 100% incorrect.

Your claim is 50% incorrect. His claim is incorrect for people in the USA. He isn't, and I'm not. Here's the relevant law for me:

28A Making of temporary copies
Copyright in a literary work, other than a computer program or a database, or in a
dramatic, musical or artistic work, the typographical arrangement of a published edition,
a sound recording or a film, is not infringed by the making of a temporary copy which is
transient or incidental, which is an integral and essential part of a technological process
and the sole purpose of which is to enable -
(a) a transmission of the work in a network between third parties by an
intermediary; or
(b) a lawful use of the work;
and which has no independent economic significance.

Note that while transient copies *are* allowed, transient copies of computer programs are specifically exempted. I don't know why not, but they are.

Re:It shouldn't be

[gnasher719]

'' And I believe you are wrong because copyright law stops you from modifying and deriving from. The GPL however permits it. Consequentely, without accepting the GPL, copyright law applies and you are not allowed to modify or derive. ''

An interesting difference here between for example US law and German law: In US law, you don't need to agree. The GPL is there a license that gives you permission to modify the software for your own use without anything you have to do in return. In German law, the GPL is a contract that gives you rights without you having to do anything in return, but the contract is only valid if both sides agree. So in the extreme case that you received software from me in Germany under the GPL, and you signed a document saying that you don't accept the GPL (but how stupid would you have to be to sign such a document), and then modified your own copy of the code without distributing it, I could sue you successfully.

In practice, there is no difference though. The GPL explicitly states that you don't need to sign anything, so in a court case you could always claim that you accepted the GPL, and nobody could prove the opposite.

Re:It shouldn't be

[SillyNickName4me]

An interesting difference here between for example US law and German law: In US law, you don't need to agree. The GPL is there a license that gives you permission to modify the software for your own use without anything you have to do in return.

Are you suggesting that in the USA the GPL applies even if you did explicitly not agree to it (regardless of how silly it is to not agree)? I find that hard to believe.

In practice, there is no difference though. The GPL explicitly states that you don't need to sign anything, so in a court case you could always claim that you accepted the GPL, and nobody could prove the opposite.

That is definitely true. As I explained elsewhere, this all is only relevant because allowing this kind of 'use' is what brought us the GPL to begin with. It is extremely unlikely to ever turn into a legal issue.

Re:It shouldn't be

[Curien]

Huh... ya' learn something new every day. Thanks.

(PS: I think that part of the law is retarded, IMNSHO. Copyright (or, really, laws in general) shouldn't limit what I can do in the privacy of my own home.)

Corporate packaging

[HoosierPeschke]

I think for corporate packaging, it should require the "I agree". It's more of a CYA thing to do.

Re:Corporate packaging

[jc42]

..., it should require the "I agree". It's more of a CYA thing to do.

Well, maybe, but people do routinely point out that the GPL doesn't require that you agree with its provisions. If you don't agree, you simply don't follow the extra rights that it gives you. You just use the software like you would anything else, under the terms of your local copyright laws. You don't need anyone's permission to do that. And it doesn't matter whether or not you agree with the copyright laws; they are in effect whether you agree or not.

So how does any user clicking add any CYA aspect to the GPL?

The only motivation I can see here is satisfying the users' expectation that they'll have to click on an (unreadable legalese) agreement. But that doesn't mean that clicking has any legal import in this case. You're merely following a custom that many users now expect, even in a case where it has no legal import.

Re:Corporate packaging

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a tool.

Re:Corporate packaging

[QuestorTapes]

> So how does any user clicking add any CYA aspect to the GPL?

The only way I can see this as CYA is in a corporate environment, it would protect (in a very small way) the distributor from accusations by someone who reused the code in an application that was released in a way that contravened the GPL.

I've seen some corporate lawyers go bats over developers and techies who downloaded tools, and some of the developers tried to claim they were unaware of licensing limitations on copying the code.

Just a thought; I may be wrong.

Re:Corporate packaging

[HoosierPeschke]

Just a thought; I may be wrong.

Nope, my thought process exactly!

Re:Corporate packaging

[SanityInAnarchy]

The only way I can see this as CYA is in a corporate environment, it would protect (in a very small way) the distributor from accusations by someone who reused the code in an application that was released in a way that contravened the GPL.

I still don't get how this is relevant. It cannot possibly be commont corporate practice to download code and reuse it without so much as asking, let alone checking the licensing terms (spelled out very clearly at the top of the source files and in a file called "LICENSE")...

I've seen some corporate lawyers go bats over developers and techies who downloaded tools, and some of the developers tried to claim they were unaware of licensing limitations on copying the code.

Except, of course, that if the license wasn't there, they would not be allowed to copy the code. Other licenses explicitly forbid copying.

Really, this is dumb. If my ass is being covered by common law, I really don't see the need for additional protection.

Stupid

[sqlrob]

I think it's stupid and laugh everytime I see it. From the GPL:
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.

Re:OT: anagram

[Utoxin]

Yes is does. As in 'of'.

Could be used strategically

[TeknoHog]

First of all, as Vo0k pointed out, there has to be a way to install and use without actually agreeing anything. However...

People are used to going through EULAs, so it's not necessarily like it makes GPL software look worse. It might be a nice place to advertise the idea of Free software, since most people are probably not aware of the difference. The GPL already has a phrase about how it gives you more rights than copyright, it should stand out at the beginning. I'm sure it would give a pleasant surprise to some people, and make some of them dig deeper into OSS.

Re:Could be used strategically

[swillden]

People are used to going through EULAs

But that's exactly the issue, and why I asked the question. People *are* used to going through EULA's, and that's something that is wrong with the state of software today. The point is that the GPL offers a better way, a way that not only allows modification and redistribution, but also a way that specifically does not require you to agree to any pile of legalese in order to use a piece of software that you obtained legally.

My position is that GPL authors should take the opportunity to make clear to users that they don't have to agree to anything to use the software.

Re:Could be used strategically

[omeg]

People aren't used to go through EULAs. I've recommended a lot of software, both free and non-free to people, and none of them ever read the EULA while I was looking over their shoulder. I also sincerely doubt that they'd do so at their own discretion when installing software on their own.

But you do have to abide by the terms...

[mellon]

So in that sense, a click-through is a good idea. Whether it needs to be twenty paragraphs of legalese is another story. It might help to spread the word if instead of seeing the GPL, you just see some plain english, like this:

This is Free Software. What that means is that you are Free to use it, and others are Free to use it as well. This software is licensed under the GNU Public License. Briefly, this means that if you modify or redistribute this software, the only freedom that you do not have is the freedom to restrict others' freedom to use and share this software.

[Done]

I don't think there's anything wrong with encouraging people to know what they are getting into, and with trying to help them to understand what the point of free software is. I think that showing them a copy of the GPL in its full detail is probably not the best way to do that, but I think a better way to undermine the idea of long legalese that you click through to get to use some piece of software is a short click-through, rather than no click-through. No click-through doesn't really say anything at all.

Re:But you do have to abide by the terms...

[ctilmes]

No you don't. You can choose to ignore the terms of the GPL if you want. If you do that, you can still use it, but (as you note), you have no other right to modify or distribute it.

In other words, GPL is about granting rights, not taking rights away. Agreeing to GPL gives you more rights than not agreeing to it. If you don't agree to it, just treat the work like any other copywrited work.

Re:But you do have to abide by the terms...

[mellon]

If you just treat it like any other copyrighted work, you are abiding by the terms of the license. So saying you don't have to abide by the terms of the license if you just treat it like any other copyrighted work is nonsensical.

Re:But you do have to abide by the terms...

[dylan_-]

If you just treat it like any other copyrighted work, you are abiding by the terms of the license. So saying you don't have to abide by the terms of the license if you just treat it like any other copyrighted work is nonsensical.

No, you're not. If I gave you a copy of some software I'd written without any license at all, you could legally use it (after all, I gave it to you) but you could not legally distribute it (copyright law says this). No license is required for these conditions.

Not accepting the GPL is the same thing.

GPL requires nothing to USE, only to DISTRIBUTE

[Anonymous Coward]

The GPL does not require you to agree to or aquiese in anything in order to use the protected work.

The GPL does not require you to agree to anything in order to modify the protected work, even if other people inside your company are using the modified version.

The GPL, in fact, doesn't require you to agree to ANYTHING, it is not a contract.

It does, however, give you permission to DISTRIBUTE the work or derived works, only if you meet certian standards.

Therefore, no click-agreement or any other type of agreement is ever necessary with GPL'd software.

The existence of such installers is a sad commentary on the state of the society of software developers. I suspect that some of them see a click through agreement to the GPL as somehow "legitimizing" the license, by aping the form of the corporate system.

I urge people to take GPL'd software with click-through agreements, modify it so the agreement is not click through, and distribute it widely, especially to the mailing list or discussion boards of the developers who wrote the click through installer.

Re:GPL requires nothing to USE, only to DISTRIBUTE

[alienw]

The GPL is most certainly a contract. You must agree to it in order to lawfully install or use the piece of software in question. GPLed software is still copyrighted, and is the property of its author. You merely get a license to use it, modify it, and distribute it. It's not different from any other EULA, other than giving you slightly more rights in exchange for certain obligations (such as providing a copy of the source code if you redistribute it). If you don't abide by the terms of the GPL, you can be sued for copyright infringement, including monetary damages. A click-wrap agreement is a good way to make enforcement easier.

Re:GPL requires nothing to USE, only to DISTRIBUTE

[Anonymous Coward]

You are wrong.

The GPL is not that long. You should not be spouting hypotheses based on your vague sense of what the GPL is from various imperfect sources. You should read it.

If you had read it, you would have noted that all the restrictions deal with distribution and copying of the work or modified works. You would also have read these words:

" 5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are
prohibited by law if you do not accept this License."

Notice that it did not say "nothing else grants you permission to USE or RUN the Program", it said "nothing else grants you permission to MODIFY or DISTRIBUTE the Program". This is not an accident ; rather, the focus on distribution derives of from the words in US copyright law, and is designed to make the GPL very powerful.

If you take the time to read Title 17 of the US code (that's the section that deals with copyrights) you will find that it also focuses on distribution. The control of distribution (which, in a typically legalistic way, does not include all the ways you can make a copy of something and give it to someone else -- just a purposely undefined subset) is the right that the copyright holder has. After all, it is called COPYright, not USEright or RUNright or READright. By using the same word "distribution" as is exactly used in the actual law, it becomes difficult for a court to invalidate the GPL (although they can always find further nuances in the legal meaning of the word "distribute").

This conviently fits in with the whole subversive hippy freedom-promoting plan of Mr. Stallman and his cohort. They really don't care what goes on inside the big glass corporate office, how the code gets used and abused inside there. They really just don't, they'd rather not think about it. However, they care deeply if the interactions between those people in there and others outside results in less freedom in society. If it sounds simplistic and idealistic, it is. And they are winning, in spite of people like you who educate themselves about the license purely by rumour and slashdot posts.

Re:GPL requires nothing to USE, only to DISTRIBUTE

[swillden]

The GPL is most certainly a contract.

The FSF's attorneys say it is not.

You must agree to it in order to lawfully install or use the piece of software in question. GPLed software is still copyrighted, and is the property of its author.

Yes, it is copyrighted, but use is not one of the rights reserved to the copyright holder by copyright law. Under copyright law, the copyright holder has no right to prevent you from reading their book, listening to their song or running their program. US copyright law even has a specific exemption for copies made in the normal process of using the program.

Under copyright law, you have the right to use any software that you acquire legally.

That's exactly what's so nasty about EULAs. They require you to agree to terms that are not specified in the law, and try to tell you that without agreeing to those terms you're not allowed to run the program.

It's not different from any other EULA

No, no, no. It's completely different from every other EULA, because the GPL is not an EULA at all.

1. The GPL is not an End User License Agreement. The license specifically says it does not in any way restrict running the program, and in fact it really doesn't apply to end users at all. The GPL applies to those who want to modify and/or distribute the program, not to those who merely use it.
2. EULAs all attempt to add additional restrictions on the user, above and beyond the restrictions provided by copyright law. The GPL, in contrast, not only places no additional restrictions on the user, it relaxes the normal copyright restrictions, granting you permission to modify and distribute the program, as long as you distribute it in the right manner.

If you don't abide by the terms of the GPL, you can be sued for copyright infringement, including monetary damages.

If you merely use the program, there is neither any need for you to accept or abide by the terms of the GPL, nor, in fact, any way for you to abide by the terms, because the GPL doesn't specify any terms.

Re:GPL requires nothing to USE, only to DISTRIBUTE

[alienw]

And you are an idiot. The copyright laws certainly cover copying, that's why they are called COPYright laws. The act of downloading and running the program is COPYING. If the GPL does not grant you this right, then you are doing it illegally, because nothing else grants you that right, either. By your logic, downloading and burning a copy of Windows XP is legal, as long as I don't enter into a contract with Microsoft. That's not the way it works.

Re:GPL requires nothing to USE, only to DISTRIBUTE

[alienw]

Yes, it is copyrighted, but use is not one of the rights reserved to the copyright holder by copyright law.

You need to download a copy of the program before you can use it and/or copy it from the distribution medium to the hard drive.

Under copyright law, the copyright holder has no right to prevent you from reading their book, listening to their song or running their program. US copyright law even has a specific exemption for copies made in the normal process of using the program.

So, if I buy a burned copy of Windows XP off of my friend and install it, it's legal? Or share one legal copy with 10 different people? Don't think so. That exemption is nowhere near as extensive as you think it is. The courts' interpretation of it is very narrow. It doesn't include things like installing the program onto a hard drive.

The GPL is not an End User License Agreement. The license specifically says it does not in any way restrict running the program, and in fact it really doesn't apply to end users at all. The GPL applies to those who want to modify and/or distribute the program, not to those who merely use it.

Well, it permits copying, among other things. Copying is generally necessary to use a program.

If you merely use the program, there is neither any need for you to accept or abide by the terms of the GPL, nor, in fact, any way for you to abide by the terms, because the GPL doesn't specify any terms.

Actually, it has a couple of restrictions. One is the patent clause: if you live in a country in which the software would violate a patent, you may be prohibited from using the software. The other is the warranty clause: "SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION."

Re:GPL requires nothing to USE, only to DISTRIBUTE

[Anonymous Coward]

If you read Title 17, you will see it primarily uses the word "distribute". This is not a result of my "logic", that is what the words actually say.

Downloading and burning a copy of Windows is legal (with a huge number of complecated caveats and exceptions). Providing a copy for others to download and burn can sometimes also be legal, with more restrictions and exceptions.

If a corporation or business obtains a copy of windows without paying for it via any means, and uses it in the course of business or economic activity, I think we can be close to 100% sure they are violating some portion of the law. If an individual downloads a copy of Windows, and uses it to browse the web and not to run a business, they are probably within the law, and it would difficult to make a law that was constitutional that outlawed it ( which is why they attempted to make the act of circumventing "copy protection" illegal via the DMCA, rather than simply outlawing all unauthorized copying ).

For example, under your understanding of the law, how do you explain this court ruling, in which providing copies of sim city and word perfect and other copyrighten software to any and all downloaders was ruled legal ? (The judge did suggest that maybe it should be illegal, but said it was legal)

http://www.loundy.com/CASES/US_v_LaMacchia.html

You cannot accept as a starting point that everything Microsoft told you was illegal is in fact illegal, and go on from there to derive what the law is. Instead, you should start by reading the Constitution, which says that Congress may create copyright law, but lays down conditions the copyright law must meet. Then, read Title 17 of the US Code, keeping the Constitution in mind and noting the parts that exceed it. (If you skip all the parts about music and radio broadcasts and forced licensing, the part applying to ordinary computer code or writen works is reasonably short -- I was able to read the printout in bits and pieces a few pages at a time over the course of a week.) Then, you can examine the statements of Microsoft or the BSA and make up your own now educated mind.

You might also then get around to reading the GPL, I think you will find it refreshingly clear after all that.

Re:GPL requires nothing to USE, only to DISTRIBUTE

[swillden]

You need to download a copy of the program before you can use it and/or copy it from the distribution medium to the hard drive.

You need to obtain it somehow, obviously. Note that in most cases, at least some of the copying you do in the process of obtaining the software occurs *before* you run the installer and potentially indicate your agreement to the terms of the GPL. I suppose you could argue that you've implicitly agreed to the terms of the GPL even before installing. That, of course, raises the question of why an explicit agreement is needed during installation. Or it would, if it made sense to ever require explicit agreement.

The fact is that the GPL is designed so that it doesn't need explicit acknowledgement. As Eben Moglen likes to say, "The GPL is [the defendant's] master key to a case that lasts longer than a nanosecond". Quite simply, without the GPL, you have no legal right to modify or distribute, say, the Linux kernel. If you do modify or distribute it, then you're infringing, unless you can prove you have permission. The GPL gives you that permission, unless you don't meet its requirements, in which case you're back in the position of having no permission.

The courts' interpretation of it is very narrow. It doesn't include things like installing the program onto a hard drive.

Actually, it has a couple of restrictions. And yet much commercial software provides the EULA after installation is completed (often, upon first execution of the program). So under what license was the installation performed? I'm not aware of any specific legal precedent clarifying this one way or the other, but the black-letter law appears pretty clear. Perhaps you can cite some counterexamples? Note that counterexamples that predate the CTEA aren't relevant, because that's when the specific exemption for copies made in the course of normal usage was added.

Actually, it has a couple of restrictions. One is the patent clause: if you live in a country in which the software would violate a patent, you may be prohibited from using the software.

You're referring to section 7, but it doesn't say what you say it does. The actual text is:

If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

Emphasis mine. Note that the clause refers to distribution, not use.

The other is the warranty clause: "SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION."

This isn't a restriction on usage, it's just a disclaimer of warranty.

Re:GPL requires nothing to USE, only to DISTRIBUTE

[zenyu]

And you are an idiot. The copyright laws certainly cover copying, that's why they are called COPYright laws. The act of downloading and running the program is COPYING.

You are an ignoramous. The copyright laws certainly cover copying, that's why they explicitly tell you that running a program or copying in other ways required for running it are not infringement.

This language dates from the 1980's because some software companies worried that if they copyrighted their software they would need a signed contract for every sale. They need not have worried because running the program was already covered under fair-use, which is another large portion of US law you should familiarize yourself with.

In they 1990's Congress added provisions to the code allowing you to transfer your music onto CD's and tapes. (And added a tax on music handling hardware and media which goes directly to the major labels.)

Re:GPL requires nothing to USE, only to DISTRIBUTE

[alienw]

When you download and install something, you are implicitly acknowledging your acceptance of whatever license the software is under. Otherwise, you would be breaking copyright law. A click-wrap license is necessary to make it easier to prove that you were aware of that agreement, and makes enforcing the license significantly easier, whether it's GPL or Microsoft's EULA. Without it, you would have to do more work to prove willful infringement.

So under what license was the installation performed? I'm not aware of any specific legal precedent clarifying this one way or the other, but the black-letter law appears pretty clear. Perhaps you can cite some counterexamples?

Generally, the EULA is presented before any actual copying occurs. My understanding is that software that is not copied onto the hard drive and runs directly from the CD-ROM does not need to be licensed, but installing it to a hard drive is not permitted without a license.

Also, you obviously haven't actually bothered reading the GPL. Here is section 8:

8. If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in
certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the
original copyright holder who places the Program under this License
may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding
those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among
countries not thus excluded. In such case, this License incorporates
the limitation as if written in the body of this License.

If distribution in your country is not permitted, then you cannot use the software legally.

Re:GPL requires nothing to USE, only to DISTRIBUTE

[alienw]

They need not have worried because running the program was already covered under fair-use, which is another large portion of US law you should familiarize yourself with.

I think you need to familiarize yourself with that area of the law. Care to cite some court cases in which running a program without a license was judged to be fair use? You are aware that the US Code does not mean a thing, right? The US legal system is based on precedent, not code. That's why we have lawyers.

In they 1990's Congress added provisions to the code allowing you to transfer your music onto CD's and tapes. (And added a tax on music handling hardware and media which goes directly to the major labels.)

What exactly does music have to do with any of this? I thought we were discussing software.

Re:GPL requires nothing to USE, only to DISTRIBUTE

[alienw]

Downloading and burning a copy of Windows is legal (with a huge number of complecated caveats and exceptions). Providing a copy for others to download and burn can sometimes also be legal, with more restrictions and exceptions.

Case closed. You ARE an idiot.

For example, under your understanding of the law, how do you explain this court ruling, in which providing copies of sim city and word perfect and other copyrighten software to any and all downloaders was ruled legal ?

This was a legal loophole before the No Electronic Theft Act was passed in 1997 (in response to this case). Besides, he was still violating copyright law. He just couldn't be CRIMINALLY prosecuted for it. If one of the software companies sued him, he would certainly be found guilty.

Then, you can examine the statements of Microsoft or the BSA and make up your own now educated mind.

I suppose misinterpreting the law is useful if you want to feel better about breaking it, but only attorneys are actually qualified to give legal opinions. The US code is meaningless if you don't know all the case law surrounding it. That's why lawyers get paid a lot. How about you go ask one and then get back to me?

Re:GPL requires nothing to USE, only to DISTRIBUTE

[jtev]

IANAL but I'm also not a dubmass. Precedent is a ruling on code. The code is rather well written, and unambigous in this instance. Statute is the first place any lawyer or judge will look. Then to any rulings on the statute. USC title 17 section 117 has not had any rulings on the language of it, which means either it hasn't come up in a court case, or no clarification has been needed. By the way, United States Code is the LAW as published by congress, so by stating that code doesn't matter, you're stating that the law does not matter.

Re:GPL requires nothing to USE, only to DISTRIBUTE

[Anonymous Coward]

"When you download and install something, you are implicitly acknowledging your acceptance of whatever license the software is under."

And by downloading and reading this response, you are agreeing to make an ass of yourself on the internet. Looks like you are in full compliance !

"If distribution in your country is not permitted, then you cannot use the software legally."

No, if distribution is illegal, then DISTRIBUTION is not permitted. If use is illegal, then USE is not permitted. If murder is illegal in your jurisdiction, and the only way you can get the software is to kill someone, you still cannot kill them. That has nothing to do with your original assertion that the GPL is contract, or the various other unfactual statements you have made in this thread.

Re:GPL requires nothing to USE, only to DISTRIBUTE

[swillden]

Generally, the EULA is presented before any actual copying occurs.

There are lots of counterexamples. VMWare is one that comes to mind, just because I installed it yesterday. The EULA is presented after installation, the first time the program is run.

My understanding is that software that is not copied onto the hard drive and runs directly from the CD-ROM does not need to be licensed, but installing it to a hard drive is not permitted without a license.

Uh huh. And where did you obtain this 'understanding'? Not from copyright law, nor from any court rulings you can cite. I've pointed out that the attorneys from the FSF, who can be presumed to understand the relevant law, say that agreeing to the GPL is not required to use GPL'd software, and I've pointed out the relevant section of the US Code. If you want to convince me, you have to come up with something better than your 'understanding'.

Also, you obviously haven't actually bothered reading the GPL. Here is section 8:

Section 8 simply says that if patent law makes the software illegal for general use in a country, the copyright holder may explicitly prohibit distribution in those countries. Even without this action on the part of the copyright holder, distribution is effectively prohibited by section 7, section 8 just allows the copyright holder to cover himself against accusations of patent infringement. In any case, section 8 says nothing about allowing or prohibiting use, only prohibiting distribution in cases where the law already prohibits use.

Re:GPL requires nothing to USE, only to DISTRIBUTE

[LarsG]

By your logic, downloading and burning a copy of Windows XP is legal, as long as I don't enter into a contract with Microsoft.

You have got to be kidding me, that's not what he said at all.

If MS made WXP available for download by anyone, then yes it would be legal to do so.

The difference is that GNU software is made available for download With The Consent Of The Copyright Holder, while copies of WXP found on P2P networks are not.

Once you have legally acquired a copy of a piece of software, Title 17 gives you the right to install and run it without requiring any further consent or license from the copyright holder. Get that through your head, because copyright lawyers are trying hard to make you believe that an EULA is required. According to the law, if you have legally acquired a copy of a piece of software, you are allowed to install and run the software without any further consent from the copyright holder.

The GPL has nothing to do with using software

[A nonymous Coward]

The GPL governs the conditions under which you can distribute software. It has nothing to do with just using it. However, it does mean that you can demand certain rights from wherever you got the software, because by distributing it, they agreed to give you access to the source code. It might also be useful for the user to understand that there is no warranty.

But yes, you can ignore the GPL in order to use software. It is a license to distribute, not to use (or to kill!).

Re:The GPL has nothing to do with using software

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a license to distribute, not to use (or to kill!).

Oh, please, is that another of those Hans Reiser jokes?

It gives visibility to the GPL

[dircha]

Most users may not even know about the GPL. They just downloaded that CD ripping software or audio software or game off of Sourceforge because it was free as in beer.

Even if these users don't usually redistribute or modify and redistribute, if they are made aware of the GPL they might favor or even seek out GPL software over freeware or shareware software in the future because they feel good about the using software that shows this respect to them.

However, it can be done incorrectly. For example, users should not have to click an "I Agree" button in order to use GPLd software because the GPL does impose any restrictions on use.

Re:It gives visibility to the GPL

[fotbr]

"might favor or even seek out GPL software over freeware"

Over freeware? To a geek, maybe. But geeks are already aware of the GPL, AND the flamewar surrounding GPL3. To a typical clueless end user, they're both free, and beyond that, they don't give a damn.

Re:It gives visibility to the GPL

[CastrTroy]

I find that although that argument sounds right, it isn't really. I find that most freeware is often very bad, and usually contains some sort of ads or stupid restrictions that stop me from getting a quality piece of software. Sure there's some good free software like WinAmp (used to be good, haven't used it in years since switching to Linux, Aramok rules) but for the most stuff, the majority of free, non open source software you find on the internet is terrible. I know that when I download something that's GPL, that at least all the features that are supposed to be there are there, and that I don't have to pay for additional features. I know that there will be no ads, and that the program will not expire on me. I'm sure there are a few pieces of GPL software that don't follow this model, but for the most part, I know that when I download GPL/Open source software, that I am getting the full program, without any crap. This is why when i'm looking for a free tool, I always go Open Source first, because I know that means there will be no crap that comes along with most of the other "freeware".

Re:It gives visibility to the GPL

[fotbr]

I think you're confusing "freeware" with "adware" or "trial versions" -- Everything I've done that wasn't done for work gets released as "freeware", no ads, no time-limits or missing features, just no source code included.

There's a lot of true freeware out there thats not open source -- if I were you I wouldn't be so dismissive of closed-source software since you might miss good stuff for the sake of ideology. Then again, if the ideology behind open source is worth more to you, I can respect that choice as well.

All I ask is that you don't lump all closed source together.

Re:It gives visibility to the GPL

[CastrTroy]

I'm confusing freeware with adware and trial versions because people often try to pawn off adware and trial versions, or software that installs 10 other things I didn't want as "freeware". The point is, is that there's no easy way to find free software that isn't adware/trial. You can go to download.com and search, and sometimes stuff says it's freeware, but when you install it, you quickly find out it is not. Looking on SourceForge and FreshMeat I find is the only reliable way to find good free software. Searching in the general internet, looking for free software that isn't open source, is like finding a needle in a haystack. There are some gems like Winamp and CDBurnerXP, but the majority of stuff that people try to pawn off as "freeware" is anything but.

Re:It gives visibility to the GPL

[fotbr]

As long as you realize that your continuing to refer to adware, trial versions, and spyware-laden stuff as freeware isn't helping the issue any, fair enough -- there isn't a central location for true freeware, though one would be useful.

That said, a case can be made that anything using the GPL isn't truely "free" either, since there are still limitations attached (though the limitations are on the distribution and use of source, NOT in the use of the software from an end-user standpoint). Or the Apache license. Or any license, with the possible exception of the BSD license.

Truely free software is released into the public domain with no strings attached. I haven't seen a whole lot of that, and people you would think would support such an idea are already wrapped up in their own politically-driven licenses.

Re:It gives visibility to the GPL

[coaxial]

However, it can be done incorrectly. For example, users should not have to click an "I Agree" button in order to use GPLd software because the GPL does impose any restrictions on use.

Worse than that, the GPL expressly forbids such a thing. From section 5 of the GPL:

5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it.

So the Irony of Ironies is that those developers that stick the GPL into an installer that requires you to agree to the license before installation, are in fact violating their own license.

Re:It gives visibility to the GPL

[djmurdoch]

So the Irony of Ironies is that those developers that stick the GPL into an installer that requires you to agree to the license before installation, are in fact violating their own license.

Just because the button says you need to click it to use the software doesn't mean you do. You're perfectly free to modify the installer to remove that requirement.

So you're not violating the GPL by including such a button. You'd be violating the GPL if you enforced it.

Still, it's not very honest to tell users they can't continue with the installation when there is no legal basis for the claim.

Re:It gives visibility to the GPL

[CastrTroy]

I'm not the one referring to adware, trialversions and spyware-laden as freeware. It's the publishers and distributors of the software. For me, the term freeware has lost all meaning. It's really too bad for people who do release true freeware. There are sites that distribute true freeware. For me those sites happen to be Sourceforge and Freshmeat, and the software happens to be open source as well. Any other site that i've seen offereing "Freeware" usually just offers adware/trialware/spyware, and has very little quality freeware. I'm not sure how many publishers/programmers there are of non-open source freeware, but maybe they should open their own site so people have a good reliable way of finding their work.

Re:It gives visibility to the GPL

[Coeurderoy]

actually there should be a wrink wrap licence and two buttons
Button one: GO TO PAYMENT (5)
Button two: Read the Fine Licence

This would enable people that enjoy being ignorant to be parted with a small amount of money
and people that are either allready knowledgable or just willing to learn to use the "Free (as in speach)" freely (as in beer)

It's certainly a bad idea, but I'm still happy I had it :-)

Re:It gives visibility to the GPL

[WilliamSChips]

Truely free software is released into the public domain with no strings attached.

Until somebody takes it up and makes it proprietary. And that's why we have the GPL.

Re:It gives visibility to the GPL

[Goaway]

You can't "take it up and make it propietary". The original source is still there, and still freely available. Nothing can ever change that.

Re:It gives visibility to the GPL

[fotbr]

Those of us who do non-open source freeware tend to be very focused in one area, usually relating to a hobby, not writing more generic stuff with mass appeal (mp3 or other media players, for example). None of the developers I know that fall into this category would want to take on running a repository, including myself - I just don't have the time it'd take. We all have pages devoted to our hobbies, and the software is available through those pages, for people who are interested. Not saying a repository wouldn't be useful, it just that most of the people I know with stuff to offer would simply rather spend their time on their hobbies.

Not saying anything about you, specifically, but the developers I'm referring to view the computer as a tool to further their hobby, NOT a hobby in and of itself, which also lends to them not wanting to maintain a freeware repository.

Re:It gives visibility to the GPL

[fotbr]

A) If I release something into the public domain, the source is out there for anyone to use any way they want.
B) If someone decides to take it, package it, and sell it, I'm fine with that. You see, they're free to do so since there are no strings attached.
C) If someone decides to build on the source, or incorporate it into something else, and sell THAT, I still don't mind, since they're free to do with it as they wish.

THAT is true free software. Anything with ANY* license attached, by nature, restricts that freedom.

*The BSD License might the exception proving the rule, since the only real restriction is including credit for the original source.

Re:It gives visibility to the GPL

[WilliamSChips]

But it lacks feature X, and the proprietary version has feature X, and feature X is hard to duplicate, and everybody wants feature X.

Re:It gives visibility to the GPL

[WilliamSChips]

Until somebody makes a proprietary version with feature X that is hard to duplicate in your "truly free" software, everybody wants feature X, everybody moves to the proprietary version, overall freedom goes down.

Re:It gives visibility to the GPL

[Goaway]

And? If the company does not want to release the source for feature X, do you think they would have added it to a GPL'd program in the first place?

Re:It gives visibility to the GPL

[WilliamSChips]

It's often not that they don't want to release the source but that they don't want it to become a major asset to their competitors--which is why we see a lot of GPL software from companies and also a lot of software under weird licenses like the CDDL but almost no corporate software under the BSD.

Re:It gives visibility to the GPL

[fotbr]

And what, exactly is wrong with that? If they've come up with something thats so hard to accomplish in the original version, and want to charge money for that improvment, they should be allowed to.

"Overall freedom" is a load of horse dung. People will make stuff available for free if they want to, and people will pay for what they want to. Ideology will not change that simple fact, no matter how much some people like to make fools of themselves insisting that the GPL is the ONLY way to "ensure free software" (not you, specifically -- I'm actually thinking of a couple of my former roommates). Where do people get the idea that because something is free, it must always be free, and anything based on it must be free too?

There is ALWAYS another choice for those with idological opposition to propriatary software, even with a lack of open-source alternatives: DO WITHOUT. It may not be an appealing option, but it IS a option.

Re:It gives visibility to the GPL

[WilliamSChips]

You can sell Free software quite easily, although market forces called "It's illegal to try to stop copying" take over. You're conflating definitions of free.
If you don't see the wrongness of somebody wanting to make something proprietary then why do you see wrongness in making something incapable of being rendered proprietary?
I wasn't actually making a moral point at that point but merely stating that a corporate entity will be most likely to make any modifications to a BSD product proprietary.

DO WITHOUT. It may not be an appealing option, but it IS a option.

Until you need it for your job.

Re:It gives visibility to the GPL

[Goaway]

They are free to take Public Domain code, modify it, and license it under the GPL. That has nothing whatsoever to do with the argument at hand.

Re:It gives visibility to the GPL

[WilliamSChips]

But when they have a choice of GPL or proprietary, they choose proprietary. The less scrupulous groups have to lose their freedom so that everybody, including them, gets infinitely more freedom.

Re:It gives visibility to the GPL

[Goaway]

But when they have a choice of GPL or proprietary

Right, so why would they choose a GPL project in the first place?

And please explain how somebody taking some freely available code, changing it, and not releasing it diminishes the "freedom" of anyone at all.

Re:It gives visibility to the GPL

[WilliamSChips]

Right, so why would they choose a GPL project in the first place?

Because the competitor's product is proprietary and currently the main contender.

And please explain how somebody taking some freely available code, changing it, and not releasing it diminishes the "freedom" of anyone at all.

Because it reduces the amount of open-source in the world, thereby hurting freedom. This says things better than I could

Re:It gives visibility to the GPL

[Goaway]

Because it reduces the amount of open-source in the world

Which piece of open-source software has disappeared?

Never gave much thought...

[thrill12]

...to it, even when I put the GPL on the installer of one of the programs I work on, as a click through.
I see EULA's not as legal agreements, as I come from The Netherlands - we do ofcourse have contracts, but all are governed by law, and some of the things that are in a contract thus don't necessarily have to apply to you as a user - you also have to sign a contract to accept it.

I see EULA's much more as an understanding between the user and the developer - an expectation. In the case of GPL, the click through must actually not read "click yes if you agree", but "click yes if you have read this" (regardless whether you agree). I don't say that what it reads is not legal, I say that of some other EULA's that are (and have been) out there.
I do say that it doesn't really matter if you put the GPL on a click through page, because it's nature is that of an understanding ("...provide the program 'as is'..."), not of a right to only use the program if you agree to the things set forward - unless, of course, you decide to redistribute or modify the program.

The GPL isn't a EULA

[Inominate]

The GPL isn't a contract. There is nothing to agree to. It's terms under which you may redistribute the software. If you do redistribute you have to follow those terms, if you don't you're committing copyright violation.

The GPL is irrelevent to someone who is simply using a piece of software.

Re:The GPL isn't a EULA

[julesh]

The GPL isn't a contract. There is nothing to agree to.

I'm not sure that this is true. If I distribute copies of a GPL program, I have to agree not to impose any terms and conditions over and above the GPL requirements on the recipient, and I have to agree to provide source code upon request.

Bad idea

[Bogtha]

It is not necessary for somebody to agree to a license in order to use a piece of software under USA law. Copies for the purpose of use is not copyright infringement.

The idea that you need special permission to use software you have already bought is abhorrent and contradicts property law. Every effort should be made to stamp it out. Doubly so when that software is given to you freely.

Re:Bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

The idea that you need special permission to use software you have already licensed is abhorrent and contradicts property law. Every effort should be made to stamp it out. Doubly so when that software is given to you freely.

Fixed it for ya. You don't "own" software like property. You get a license to use it.

Re:Bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

When people plopped down their money and bought the software is when they got the "license," not when somebody clicks on some eula/agreement that is filled with seldom read legalease. And so much as not "owning software," that's like saying you don't own the book on your shelf.

In fact, the same silly argument of "license" was tried by somebody with books at the turn of the century, and was subsequently snuffed out by the courts. It as unfortunate that some scumbag lawyer thirty years ago managed to shoehorn the same crappy idea into software.

Really, I'm sorry for feeding you troll. But I had to respond because I know that there are people who don't want people to own the material they view, listen to, read or use. And companies have tried to put all sorts of crap in their eulas that isn't even legal. The very nature of unnegotiated "one sided agreement" is abhorrent as parent alludes to. Quite frankly, that idea needs to be thrown into a lake of fire.

Putting an eula on GPL software is like putting it in a roach motel, and shouldn't be done. Parent post is right.

Re:Bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you bother to read his link to US COPYRIGHT LAW?

You don't need to a licence to install and run software. You can DECLINE any offered licence, and you can install and run the software.

Re:Bad idea

[MrResistor]

You don't "own" software like property. You get a license to use it.

You could not possibly be more wrong. You own software in exactly the same way that you own a book.

Re:Bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

well, I can see somebody's never read an MS EULA...

You must be kidding

[nurb432]

People dont 'go through the EULA', they just click on a button to make the stupid thing go away.

less then 1% actualy read any of that stuff.

It might even backfire ' see, this free stuff isnt really free, it had some legal jargon i had to click ok for '

Re:You must be kidding

[lakeland]

When I run commercial software I see lots of stupid ads, lots of stupid splash screens, lots of stupid EULAs.
When I run free software I see no adds, few splash screens and no EULAs.

It is part of what makes free software different. Giving up and saying "okay, we'll have EULAs too is like saying, okay, we'll have DRM too, we'll just default to setting everything off." You lose an opportunity to make users think 'hey, cool, no stupid licence I have to scroll through without reading.'

Does it even matter?

[Secret Rabbit]

First off, the GPL is not an EULA. So, it's presence as one is just plain stupidity.

Secondly, how many people even read the EULA? I know I don't. Just like just about everyone else, the EULA could say "titty titty bang bang" and I/we wouldn't notice.

So, who really cares?

It's a copyright license

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody should display a clickthrough copyright license, they should instead display a short polite note about free software.

This program is free software, you are free to use and modify this software however you want. You are also free to redistribute this software under the terms of the GNU General Public License version $V (view license).

By clicking 'reply to this', you agree that expecting users to clickthrough a copyright license is as pointless as corporate email boilerplate. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you should delete all trace of it from your computer. A large electromagnet brought into close proximity with your hard drive platter should do it... Oh and some pictures of your sister. TIA.

Disclaimer of Warranty & Liability

[cortana]

No one seems to have mentioned the LARGE CAPITOL LETTER SECTION of the GPL that tells you that the author disclaims responsitibility from any damage caused by the program, etc.

Given the choice between inserting the GPL into the EULA section of commonly used installer software, or opening themselves up to huge potential liability, I can't blame software distributors for weaseling out and going with the status quo.

Cool!

[kst]

I once installed some GPLed software (sorry, I don't remember what it was) that displayed the GPL as if it were a EULA. But rather than having "Accept" and "Don't accept" buttons, it has a single button labeled "Cool!".

Re:Cool!

[mehemiah]

THAT'S AWSOME, IM GOING TO DO THAT I hope that idea is not copyrighted

-- if this was repeated multiple times sorry, im using a gentoo version of konqueror

Re:Cool!

[swillden]

I hope that idea is not copyrighted

Ideas cannot be copyrighted. Well, mostly.

Re:Cool!

[zcat_NZ]

Ideas cannot be copyrighted. Well, mostly.

But somewhere in the darker recesses of Redmond a lawyer is drafting a patent application..

Re:Cool!

[swillden]

Yes, patents are not copyrights.

Re:Cool!

[some guy on slashdot]

And with that, I declare the discussion closed.

Seriously, if I ever create a piece of GPL'ed software, that's what I'll do. I may also use someone else's suggestion to start the license text with something along the lines of, "YOU DO NOT NEED A LICENSE TO RUN THIS SOFTWARE. If you are planning to redistribute this software or its source code, with or without alterations, please see below." Those two sound like a winning combination.

Re:Cool!

[Jon Kay]

> it was) that displayed the GPL as if it were a EULA. But rather
> than having "Accept" and "Don't accept" buttons, it has a single
> button labeled "Cool!".

But what if you're Bill Gates? What does he click?

Re:Cool!

[kst]

It's the zinf audio player.

Re:Cool!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. It also said this back when it was known as Freeamp. (Stupidly, it had to change its name because of a very dubious trademark dispute ... ZINF = Zinf Is Not Freeamp).

To click or not to click

[solid_liq]

I personally hate having to click through license agreements when I install commercial software. To me, not having to do that just adds to that warm and fuzzy feeling I get from using GPL'd software. I would rather the applications show an informational message about the GPL upon startup, in a Tips windows. Showing GPL info at the top of the window, and application specific tips on the bottom seems to me like a better approach. This way, as long as the user has tips enabled, they'll be seeing "GPL" everytime they start the app. As we all know, our memories are more likely to retain information through repetition, so this seems to me to be a more effective and less intrusive method of informing people about the GPL.

Short answer: NO!

[marcosdumay]

Now the long answer:

There is nothing forbiding you from asking the user to accept the license, although it is a bit confusing, since the user doesn't have to accept it to use the software.

But the problem with that dialog is that it makes it difficult to bundle software. Imagine what would happen if all the libraries you use showed a dialog to the user at install time. I guess nobody would use your software, ever (that is not a hypotetical situation, you can see it by downloading DevC++ and instaling a few extensions, for example). Now imagine what would happen while installing a free OS, like Linux, if every package asked the user to accept a license... Installing any modern distro would take days!

Well, a distro doesn't have to show your dialog. But that solution would be almost as bad as the problem, since every distro would have to fork it. This way, no software would have a big userbase, and the work needed to create a distro (that is alread huge) would skyrocket.

So, no. Please con't ask the user to accept the GPL. It seems harmless at the beginning, but does a lot of harm to your project and the community.

Re:Short answer: NO!

[SanityInAnarchy]

Actually, this is one huge benefit of well-known licenses like the GPL: They are well-known. Gentoo keeps a repository of all licenses for all packages in /usr/portage/licenses, which, as of yesterday, has 859 files. That's kind of insane, really, but I imagine the Windows world is worse -- anyway, a significant number of packages are GPL, LGPL, or BSD. If, for some strange reason, Gentoo ran into a problem of requiring a lot more people clicking "yes" (right now we only have to do this for certain binary packages, like doom3), adding an "agree always" button would be very helpful. So, for instance, "Always accept GPLv2" means that from then on, the system would not bother to ask.

So, this means that you can actually reasonably expect a user to read through the entire license, without requiring a laywer on call for simple installation/updates.

This can really only work in the opensource world, however. We give our licenses names, and they stay the same -- there's no "subject to change without notice" clause. Most proprietary stuff has its own unique license, which is almost never good. The only exception I've found is the ut2004 demo license, which is less than two pages on an 80x24 terminal, and appears to have been written by a programmer and verified by a lawyer, not the other way around -- it's actually human-readable, even teenager-readable. Compare that to the common corporate world -- every program has its own license, even if they're all derived from the same source, each one has its own subtle differences.

In fact, I wouldn't consider actually attempting to read one without keeping a CVS repository of them, and reading through diffs instead of trying to read a whole license.

But really, I'd like to put meaning back to the "I agree" button. Cut down on the sheer number of licenses, have an agree once/always button, and throw in some summaries in the style of Creative Commons.

Why the F*** are we doing this?

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

Better yet: Don't waste my time prompting me with crap every time I want to install software.

Imagine if your favourite *nix package manager, ports tree, or build system prompted you with "legal info" for every single piece of software you tried to install. Or every library.

Click-wrap is the some of the most annoying and pointless bullshit users put up with, and they really shouldn't have to.

Re:Why the F*** are we doing this?

[doti]

hey, calm down... :)

We are not talking about *every* install, not even to enforce such prompot. Each author decides if he will use it, just like it choose the licence.

And cmdline installation methods wouldn't prompt, they suppose you know what you're doing.
This dialog thing is meant for end users who click on a package icon on his KDE/Gnome file browser, or run an installation binary.

Re:Why the F*** are we doing this?

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

Why would using the CLI mean you know anything about copyright law?

Anyway, the point is that it's crappy user interface design.

Re:Why the F*** are we doing this?

[bcrowell]

The grandparent post is right.

We are not talking about *every* install, not even to enforce such prompot. Each author decides if he will use it, just like it choose the licence.
Distros are supposed to have standards for how to install software. On Debian, for example, the standards include a requirement that the program have a man page, and play nicely with apt. Individual authors should not be going around imposing crap like this on a case by case basis. Next thing you know, we'll start seeing, on a case by case basis, insanity like installers that phone home to register your copy of GPL'd software. Sure the author gets to choose the license; and if the license isn't a decent open source license, then distros like Debian will refuse to package and distribute it. Likewise the author can choose to make you click on a copy of the GPL, or choose to require you to put a hardware dongle on your USB port every time you want to run his program, but no self-respecting distro should package and distribute software that's set up like that.

And cmdline installation methods wouldn't prompt, they suppose you know what you're doing.
Sun's command-line installers for the java runtime and compiler do exactly this kind of stuff. You have to go to a web page, check a box to say you agree to the license, download a tarball, unpack it, execute a script, promise again that you'll respect the license, etc., etc. We shouldn't tolerate garbage like this. We shouldn't allow it to become an accepted practice in the OSS world.

Re:Why the F*** are we doing this?

[Arker]

Actually, on the Mac, it does do this for every "installer" (although fortunately a good portion of programs don't need an installer - well, actually almost none do, but some use it anyway.) I always found it quite funny. OSX is BUILT on free software from the ground up, they can hardly claim they weren't aware of it, but the installer program (it reads .pkg files, essentially the same idea as .rpm or .deb) rigidly follows the protocol "display license, only proceed when agree is clicked." So there is the license on screen, saying clearly "You do not have to agree" and yet you do, indeed, have to click the button labeled agree (not exactly the same thing I think, but makers of proprietary software including Apple certainly do want you to think it is) in order to get it installed.

Re:Why the F*** are we doing this?

[SharpFang]

This is good on Linux, where you KNOW everything you install is GNU unless stated otherwise and present in non-free directory (in which case you're usually presented with the licese during first launch, even worse than during install.) On Windows, where you live in a mix of very different licenses, and most of them restrictive about using the program, not just distribution, knowing what license a given program is, is more important. Of course if there was an installer in windows where you pick software by license, click "install" and have 50 pieces of software installed (...like Cygwin?) the "shrinkwrap" step could be skipped.

Re:Why the F*** are we doing this?

[Gordonjcp]

You're not agreeing to the licence, you're agreeing that you've read and understood it.

Re:Why the F*** are we doing this?

[Arker]

No, actually I'm clicking a stupid button to continue the install. I'm not agreeing to anything.

Re:Why the F*** are we doing this?

[Haeleth]

This is good on Linux, where you KNOW everything you install is GNU unless stated otherwise and present in non-free directory

Sorry, but you appear not to know what you're talking about.

1. The division of packages into "free"/"non-free" groups is made by numerous Linux distributions, such as Debian, but it is not an inherent part of Linux (or even GNU/Linux).
2. Even in Linux distributions which make such a distinction, it is certainly not the case everything classified as "free" is GNU, for two reasons:
   1. Not all software that uses a GNU license is GNU software. The licenses are free for anyone to use.
   2. Not all "free" software uses a GNU license. There are dozens of non-GNU licenses that are considered Free Software licenses.

Re:Why the F*** are we doing this?

[miyako]

I disagree, and here is why:
In order for people to fight for freedom, they essentially need to know two things: first they need to know what freedom is, and second they need to know that they don't have it. As this applies to free software, people need to understand what it means for software to be free, and they have to understand how people and companies go about taking away that freedom.
People are pretty much used to shrinkwrap EULAs, I would be surprised if anyone ever actually read the license that is displayed when they go to install a program (most people don't care, those who do would read the EULA before they install). However, I think that something like another poster mentioned, with a box that says basically "You don' have to agree to this license to use this program\nClick [[here]] to read the license if you want to change or redistribute the program" would get peoples attention and get them wondering.
Now, I also agree that it would be stupid to have this be a requirement for every package that you might install on your distribution. Instead, I would suggest something like this:
Since 99% of the software covered under any given distribution can be covered under one of about five licenses (GPL, LGPL, BSD, MPL, Apache) then just show those licenses once - either during install or just have them in the documentation. Include some software like a "license reader" that would have the licnese text, and programs that are covered under that license. If you install something that is covered under a different license, but is part of your distro, then pop up a little box that says basically "new license added to repository, click [here] to see it" or something. The idea basically being that you pretty much know what your getting when it comes to installing software that is part of your distro or in your distro's repository.
Now, when I think that a click-through license display is worthwhile is for software that isn't part of your distribution. Especially for binary installers for software on sourceforge, etc, I think that it is perfectly reasonable to include something to tell users that even though they are just running a binary installer, they have the freedom to get and look at and change the code, and to re-distribute the program.

Re:Why the F*** are we doing this?

[russotto]

The person who builds the installer package can decide whether or not to put the "license" step in that package. When I put together the package for my port of a GPLed wireless driver to OS X, I deliberately left that step out.

Not just bad, possibly a GPL violation itself

[Todd Knarr]

The GPL shouldn't be presented as an EULA, because it isn't one. Sections 0 and 5 both make it abundantly clear that you do not need to agree to the GPL to merely use the software. Presenting the GPL as an EULA isn't consistent with those sections.

In fact, the software's author may even argue that a distributor who presents the GPL as an EULA where declining it causes the software to not be installed is in fact violating the GPL themselves. The requirement to agree with the GPL before use would be an additional condition not required by the GPL itself, and adding that condition would violate section 4 of the GPL.

Not the distributor's fault?

[Captain Spam]

It may not be the fault of the distributor/packager of the software that the GPL shows up as a click-through EULA (well, not directly at least). Don't a lot of prepackaged installers (InstallShield, Nullsoft, etc) have a default field to fill in for a EULA? Perhaps it's just that whomever made the installer wants to put SOMETHING there to fill space and look special, not knowing that it's truly not needed (assuming you can't get away with leaving it empty). Or they think their program will look immature and flaky if it doesn't pop up with something that looks like it's threatening the user like the bigger companies do.

Or, it could just be that these people don't really read the GPL, per se, they just think it's "hip" and "trendy" and whatnot the kids are saying these days, dagnabbit. Then again, if the source is included in such a distribution (I've seen some that do), it may be a good idea to slap the license in at some point anyway.

Its a distribution licence not an end user licence

[Marcion]

Sticking in default Windows installers may be convenient but is stupid as you are reinforcing the proprietary and anti-social behaviour where people are encouraged to lie - "Click if you have read and agree to this licence" - even though they know the average person hasn't read it and is not capable of understanding it, let alone agreeing to it.

17 USC 117

[tepples]

You may not copy a work to your computer's disk, to its RAM, or portions thereof to its cache, processor and other components without permission.

Get real. I quote from Title 17, United States Code, Section 117:

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 [17 USC 106], it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:

1. that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner

Re:17 USC 117

[julesh]

And I quote from the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988:

28A Making of temporary copies
Copyright in a literary work, other than a computer program or a database, or in a
dramatic, musical or artistic work, the typographical arrangement of a published edition,
a sound recording or a film, is not infringed by the making of a temporary copy which is
transient or incidental, which is an integral and essential part of a technological process
and the sole purpose of which is to enable -
(a) a transmission of the work in a network between third parties by an
intermediary; or
(b) a lawful use of the work;
and which has no independent economic significance.

(The poster you're replying to isn't in the US; don't assume all countries have the same laws)

Re:17 USC 117

[tepples]

Can you explain this British law in layman's terms? Is copying a program into RAM an infringement, or is it not? And how do the text and the case law support it?

Re:17 USC 117

[julesh]

Can you explain this British law in layman's terms? Is copying a program into RAM an infringement, or is it not? And how do the text and the case law support it?

Yes, it is. Making a copy is an infringement other than in specific cases outlined; the case for temporary copies that are essential for the use of the work specifically excludes computer programs.

The only case I'm aware of that made reference to it was one that involved mod chips for PS2s. The mod chips caused a copy of the game to be made in RAM during loading, and it was held that this copy was infringing in the case of a parallel import game because the license with the games stated they were only intended for use in a specific region. I'm afraid I don't have a reference to the case with me, but it has been mentioned here before.

Caused by 3rd party installers?

[grnbrg]

How much of this can be attributed to people using a 3rd party installer, that has a "Paste the distribution license here" field when they build the distribution package?

That's always been my assumption when I've seen the GPL in a click-through....

grnbrg.

Patch the work to ditch it

[dondelelcaro]

Anytime a GPLed work has such a clickwrap, it's trivial to patch the work such that it no longer displays the clickwrap. Most distributions (I know Debian does in a few cases) should be doing this already, because clickwraps are annoying and generally get in the way of users actually using the programs that they have installed.

Just as useful for GPL as EULA

[ClosedSource]

I think everybody here understands that the GPL doesn't put any restrictions on running the software and that the GPL isn't a EULA.

Having said that a "click-through" agreement doesn't automatically imply a EULA even if in practice it usually is. Since GPL'd software is either distributed with source or available to the user on request and the GPL puts specific restrictions on the use of that source code, it's entirely appropriate that the receiver of this bundled (binary and source) product be made conspicuously aware of and agree to all the terms that they may be bound by.

In short the value of a click-through agreement is exactly the same whether it is a closed source EULA or the GPL: it informs the individual receiving the software of possible legal limitations and makes it much more difficult to for that individual to claim ignorance of the license.

Solution

[Inmatarian]

This software is licenced according to
the terms of the General Public License.
Please read the file COPYING for more
information.
[Previous] [Next]

IANAL, But my understanding of the GPL is that is only applies to the distibution of modified source code and binaries, and not to the actual use of said program. So, technically there's nothing for the end user to agree or disagree with, it's the ones who take part in the development and modification of the software who are bound by the terms. In which case, an "I AGREE" might be neccessary if you wanted to install the source files, and even then, I think you're still free to read the source code.

No You Don't (Have To Abide By the Terms)

[mkcmkc]

You do not have to abide by the terms of the GPL. The GPL is not a contract. You merely need to obey copyright law (in the USA, at least). End of story.

...Except for one small thing. The GPL is a license that might give you permission to copy a piece of software (that you would otherwise be disallowed from copying), if you meet certain conditions.

Re:No You Don't (Have To Abide By the Terms)

[mellon]

The GPL is a license. You have to abide by the terms of the license, or when you make a copy of the code you are violating the law. The terms of the license are pretty reasonable, and it's relatively unlikely that an average person would unknowingly violate them, but that doesn't mean you don't have to follow them. You're right that it's not a contract, but it is a license.

Re:No You Don't (Have To Abide By the Terms)

[mkcmkc]

In saying that one must abide by the license terms, you are assuming that one must copy the software, which is simply not the case. No one is forced to copy GPL'ed software (or use it, for that matter). This may seem like hairsplitting, but it's not. The GPL essentially gives you a gift: you're allowed to copy something you'd otherwise have no right to. The gift does come with some strings attached, albeit very reasonable ones. No one has to accept the gift.

Oh Honestly....

[Anonymous Coward]

As if anyone actually reads those things anyway...

-1: moot

The bottom line...

[petrus4]

...is that if people want to add clickwraps, they're going to whether the GPL allows it or not.

I don't like clickwraps myself, but that's irrelevant. The point is that commercially minded types (and especially commercially minded types who've had development experience on Windows) often *are* inclined to use them. I also (unlike certain hard leftists we know about who will remain nameless, at least for the moment) do not fundamentally object to people making money from software. For those of you who are going to point me to this, it'd be great if it was still true...but from what I've read recently, Stallman's position on commercial software in any form seems to have changed to one of opposition.

If the GPL was really a license all developers wanted, we wouldn't be seeing (at least conscious) violations. This is yet another logical inconsistency inherent in referring to this license as free. (unless of course you subscribe to the Stallmanite definition of that word, which I do not)

A license which genuinely allowed people to do what they wanted would not have or need a website like gpl-violations.org associated with it. (Note to the usual Stallmanite zombies reading this; I am not interested in hearing a regurgitation of Stallman's "total freedom devolves into feudalism," line...primarily because said line is utter bullshit. This can be proven by the number of projects which have managed to survive and function well with non-copyleft licenses...or did until some of them caved to pressure from Stallman to "harmonise" their own licenses with the GPL)

The bottom line is that for as long as the GPL legislates downstream use, it will continue to be violated, because legislation of downstream use (for good *or* bad) is not in accordance with the greater balance of human desire. It might be something which a certain number of people are willing to tolerate, and which a Marxist minority actively want, but it isn't something that the majority want. Of course, believe otherwise if you want...but you might notice contrary evidence continues piling up.

Ask yourself...and think long and hard about this. Do the FSF currently endorse that which you really want? It could be just me, but there honestly seems to have been a change in their behaviour in the last 2-3 years. The tone of the gnu.org site to me has become a lot more strident.

Not only is Linux becoming more popular anyway, but with the Vista release looming, and Microsoft's Windows Genuine Advantage and other DRM having been reported as being parts of it, I wouldn't be surprised to find that Stallman (at least secretly) could feel as though he potentially has almost the entire computer using population of the planet over a barrel right now. It would certainly explain a few things...the extra stuff in the GPL v3, and the change of the FSF's tone to one that is becoming far more aggressive and confrontational. The mask is coming off, because they're feeling large and in charge...and as though they've got nothing to lose.

Once again, I know I'm going to get the usual response from Stallman's supporters on here that I have no idea what I'm talking about...and for once I will concede, they could be right.

Most of the time, Stallman appears to be the kindly, altruistic, slightly eccentric genius that his followers think he is, and which they want the rest of us to see him as. Every so often though...and I've noticed it happens more regularly lately...the mask cracks ever so slightly.

What I (and some others, I know) see through those cracks truly is not pretty.

Re:The bottom line...

[Todd Knarr]

The GPL aims to restrict only one "freedom": the freedom to restrict other people's freedoms. It says simply that if I as the original author granted everyone certain freedoms, you as a distributor or modifier of my code are not free to take away those freedoms and if you try you lose your right to be a distributor or modifier. Certainly this restricts your freedoms, but most people using the GPL don't see that as anything worse than laws against theft restricting the freedom of thieves to steal.

Re:The bottom line...

[NewToNix]

The GPL aims to restrict only one "freedom": the freedom to restrict other people's freedoms. It says simply that if I as the original author granted everyone certain freedoms, you as a distributor or modifier of my code are not free to take away those freedoms and if you try you lose your right to be a distributor or modifier. Certainly this restricts your freedoms, but most people using the GPL don't see that as anything worse than laws against theft restricting the freedom of thieves to steal.

This is the real +5 post. Well said.

Re:The bottom line...

[mav[LAG]]

...is that if people want to add clickwraps, they're going to whether the GPL allows it or not.

The GPL has no legal force outside that granted by copyright law. It's just permission granted to you to copy, modify and distribute software you received under its terms. It has nothing to say about usage or clickwraps.

For those of you who are going to point me to this, it'd be great if it was still true...but from what I've read recently, Stallman's position on commercial software in any form seems to have changed to one of opposition.

Commercial software? What's that? Software you sell for money? Like the GPLed code I used to write and sell to make a tidy living? Or something else?

If the GPL was really a license all developers wanted, we wouldn't be seeing (at least conscious) violations.

Ahh, I see - so it's the GPL that's the problem when a company or an individual takes someone else's copyrighted code and disobeys the terms of the license. Thanks for clearing that up.

This is yet another logical inconsistency inherent in referring to this license as free. (unless of course you subscribe to the Stallmanite definition of that word, which I do not)

The FSF makes it quite clear over and over again that it means free as in freedom, not free as in price. It's a limitation of common English usage, not logic. Whether you want to see it or not has no effect on its legal force.

A license which genuinely allowed people to do what they wanted would not have or need a website like gpl-violations.org associated with it.

Indeed. Except the GPL is not, never has been and never will be a license that genuinely allows people to do what they want. No license is like that - by law there must be at least one restriction otherwise it's not a license.

This can be proven by the number of projects which have managed to survive and function well with non-copyleft licenses...or did until some of them caved to pressure from Stallman to "harmonise" their own licenses with the GPL)

Examples of such projects?

The bottom line is that for as long as the GPL legislates downstream use, it will continue to be violated, because legislation of downstream use (for good *or* bad) is not in accordance with the greater balance of human desire.

The GPL has nothing whatever to say about use. It only mentions redistribution. You might try learning a bit about the license before posting these diatribes of yours - it saves embarrassment. And the bottom line is that if somebody wants to redistribute someone else's copyrighted code without permission, they will find themselves in court - greater balance of human desire or not.

Ask yourself...and think long and hard about this. Do the FSF currently endorse that which you really want? It could be just me, but there honestly seems to have been a change in their behaviour in the last 2-3 years. The tone of the gnu.org site to me has become a lot more strident.

As opposed to the DRM manufacturers and proprietary software vendors who have become a lot more friendly and accommodating to their users. Oh wait...

Not only is Linux becoming more popular anyway, but with the Vista release looming, and Microsoft's Windows Genuine Advantage and other DRM having been reported as being parts of it, I wouldn't be surprised to find that Stallman (at least secretly) could feel as though he potentially has almost the entire computer using population of the planet over a barrel right now.

Yeah, so totally over a barrel it's unbearable. What a horrible threat it is too: "Here's billions of dollars worth of code that you can use, study, learn from. add to, copy, modify and distribute to your heart's content with the sole restriction that you can't forbid these freedoms to anyone else."

Vendors like IBM, HP and Dell that make hundreds of millions of dollars doing this must be really crying for mercy...

Re:The bottom line...

[Anonymous Coward]

You say that "...legislation of downstream use...is not in accordance with the greater balance of human desire....it isn't something that the majority want."

This is absurd. Preservation of downstream freedom, which is the only thing the GPL "legislates", is most certainly in accordance with the greater balance of human desire and is something that nearly everyone wants. The only people who could conceivably oppose it are those who want to take someone else's work and generosity and make it proprietary, depriving others of the universal free use that the original author intended, in order to maximize their own selfish gain from it.

People like you need to get this through your thick heads: Unlike proprietary EULAs, the GPL does not deprive anyone (users, developers, or resellers) of any rights whatsoever. It *only* grants rights that would otherwise be illegal by default under vanilla copyright law, and it grants them on extremely generous terms, the only string attached being that you not try to take away the rights from others that the author wished to grant to everyone. To try to do otherwise is to say "Thanks for giving away this free thing to the whole world, I benefit from its usefulness and from your generosity. Now I will turn my attention to how to wrest that freedom away from the rest of the world so that I can benefit from it even more by selling it to world." One possible word for this kind of person is "asshole."

Re:The bottom line...

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you even looked at the GPL v.3?

Re:The bottom line...

[SanityInAnarchy]

Have you? GPLv3 restricts specific loopholes in GPLv2. That's all.

In any case, it's as irrelevant as Vista right now. Neither of them exist. There is no GPLv3, there is only a GPLv3 draft.

Re:The bottom line...

[SanityInAnarchy]

...is that if people want to add clickwraps, they're going to whether the GPL allows it or not.

Question: What can we do to them if the GPL does not allow it?

but from what I've read recently, Stallman's position on commercial software in any form seems to have changed to one of opposition.

Source?

If the GPL was really a license all developers wanted,

then it would be the fucking Grail. Are we through here?

When did anyone ever claim the GPL is what all developers want? I certainly never claimed Firefox is what every thinking web user should want. Konqueror and Opera are doing pretty well.

This is yet another logical inconsistency inherent in referring to this license as free.

In what way is the language not free?

I am not interested in hearing a regurgitation of Stallman's "total freedom devolves into feudalism," line...primarily because said line is utter bullshit.

Care to explain BSD?

This can be proven by the number of projects which have managed to survive and function well with non-copyleft licenses

You know, I can't think of one. Honestly, I can't. All of the major open source projects I can think of are under something that at least attempts copyleft -- if they do allow people to close up the software, they only allow a single organization that privilege.

Or are you referring to software that is more restrictive?

or did until some of them caved to pressure from Stallman to "harmonise" their own licenses with the GPL

I'm curious about this one. But certainly, if they "caved", wouldn't that imply it was something the develpers wanted? Or does Stallman wield some sort of pressure against small projects that I don't know about?

The bottom line is that for as long as the GPL legislates downstream use, it will continue to be violated, because legislation of downstream use (for good *or* bad) is not in accordance with the greater balance of human desire. It might be something which a certain number of people are willing to tolerate, and which a Marxist minority actively want, but it isn't something that the majority want.

Oh, do tell, what does the majority want?

Of course, believe otherwise if you want...but you might notice contrary evidence continues piling up.

Out of curiosity, what evidence? Gentoo seems to have 15,144 packages distributed under the GPL, which would seem very much to suggest that this is something that the majority of open source developers want. In fact, I checked -- 61% of Gentoo packages are GPLv2. I can run a check on other licenses, but I'd guess at around 70 or 80% are copyleft-inspired.

Do the FSF currently endorse that which you really want?

Yes. Or at least, close enough.

Besides, it never had to. RMS was always of the opinion that all software should be free and GPL'd. When someone mentioned games, he said that it made sense for the game data to be under a very stringent license, so long as the code itself was open. I would agree somewhat -- I would very much like to see this happen with singleplayer games, and more older games. But I believe at least keeping the code closed provides a stumbling block for would-be cheaters. Not much more, but a stumbling block is really all we need, because how many people want to cheat badly enough to actually do the code? Most cheaters are by nature lazy assholes. So, in a multiplayer game, the code must be kept closed if it is possible to cheat on the client side -- it may yet be possible to make an MMO for which this is not true.

I feel pretty strongly about that, and about the right of anyone to close their source if they want. But I don't have to agree with Stallman personally, or with gnu.org. I

Re:The bottom line...

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you? GPLv3 restricts specific loopholes in GPLv2. That's all.

Er, yeah. Which is exactly the point. You're just defining it as 'restricting loopholes' rather than accepting the changes as indications of exactly what the OP is discussing.

In any case, it's as irrelevant as Vista right now. Neither of them exist. There is no GPLv3, there is only a GPLv3 draft.

If someone writes a suicide note and it is only a draft, is it magically 'irrelevant' in determining whether or not the person is suicidal? No.

The GPLv3 is relevant because the current draft indicates exactly what the OP is discussing (in particular, the intentions/philosophy of the FSF et al.). So it is irrelevant that it is still only a draft.

Re:The bottom line...

[SanityInAnarchy]

Have you? GPLv3 restricts specific loopholes in GPLv2. That's all.

Er, yeah. Which is exactly the point. You're just defining it as 'restricting loopholes' rather than accepting the changes as indications of exactly what the OP is discussing.

The only changes I'm aware of that are controversial at all are the tivoization clause. Now, many people are claiming that tivoization should be allowed, and that the GPLv2 is perfectly fine as it stands. There is also a group of people who believes that the BSD license is fine as it stands. But tivoization is rightly a loophole, because the spirit of the GPL, as expressed by the FSF, has always been that users should be able to do whatever they want to their software.

Source code was not simply seen as something to learn from -- look, but don't touch -- but as something to work with, to improve upon. The whole free software movement starts with Stallman being pissed at a broken printer driver. He could've easily fixed it, he'd done it before with the last printer, but this time, they refused to give him the source code.

Stallman would've been equally as pissed if he was trying to fix printer firmware and there was no way to flash a modified version from anywhere except the manufacturer, or if there was no way to flash it, period.

You may disagree with these motivations, but if you (or OP) think this is a new thing, you need to read some history. These are loopholes. To not see them as such means you should be looking for a license other than GPLv2. GPLv2 was always designed to do what GPLv3 is attempting, they just didn't anticipate the tivoisation loophole, or the web services loophole.

If someone writes a suicide note and it is only a draft, is it magically 'irrelevant' in determining whether or not the person is suicidal? No.

That's a whole other issue. Most people I know have had suicidal thoughts at one point in their life.

The GPLv3 is relevant because the current draft indicates exactly what the OP is discussing (in particular, the intentions/philosophy of the FSF et al.). So it is irrelevant that it is still only a draft.

So why does Microsoft get a free pass with Vista? "But it's only a beta!!!!!one" No.

Most sane discussions I've seen about the GPLv3 suggest that nobody minds forcing Tivo to allow people to flash their DVRs. What people really care about is some usage they see as legitimate, which the GPLv3, as written, might restrict. I'd suggest that these people get in on the discussion -- since it is just a draft after all -- and see if it can be changed to allow that, or if it really is being intentionally left out.

For instance: One of the most common misconceptions is that Ubuntu could no longer sign its packages. This may have been an unintentional side effect of some early drafts, but now it's clear -- Ubuntu can do this, because you, as a user, are allowed to ignore the signature, or sign it yourself and force your Ubuntu install to recognize your signature. The signature is still good for security, because you may decide to accept it, but it's not forced down your throat, the way it is on most proprietary systems.

As far as I'm concerned, it's far too easy to give up on the GPL. If you care that much about it, go join the lists, discuss it, improve it.

not stupid at all

[oohshiny]

The click-through is usually not required when you run the program, it's required when you install it. And, yes, that's a sensible point to display it, because that's (1) when you might naturally decide to request the source from the person that gave you the installer, and (2) when you might decide that you didn't want to agree to the GPL and can destroy the software.

Generally, I'm against installers that require any interaction; I think they are a nuisance. But since they are standard on Windows and Macintosh, they might as well display the GPL when they come to the license agreement field.

In fact, as a Windows or Macintosh user, I expect to be told the license as part of the installer; if it is not, I might assume that the distributor is trying to sneak in software with bad licensing terms on my machine.

Re:not stupid at all

[swillden]

when you might decide that you didn't want to agree to the GPL and can destroy the software.

It's fine if you don't want to agree to the GPL, but why would you then destroy the software? The only reason to get rid of the software is if you decide you don't like it and don't want to use it. You can choose not to accept the terms of the GPL and still use it, because the GPL doesn't impose any terms unless you modify or distribute the program.

Re:not stupid at all

[oohshiny]

People working at places like Microsoft may be prohibited from using GPL'ed software and will likely stop the installer once the GPL license is displayed.

People like me will likely stop the installer if it doesn't say that the software is covered by some open source license.

Giving people up-front information about what the license and redistribution terms are is important for everybody: both open source users and open source foes.

Re:not stupid at all

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft might have a policy of not downloading (any) source code to make sure it doesn't get incorporated by mistake, but there's no reason not to run a GPL binary. Normally it's completely clear if you're downloading source code or a binary and if not, a GPL license click-wrap is useless as a warning sign of "corporate danger" because it means you're dealing with a non-viral binary.

Re:not stupid at all

[Anonymous Coward]

What's so hard to understand about the fact that people want to know the license of the software before they start using it? Whether they are legally permitted to use it is not relevant: Microsoft has as many strategic and PR reasons for not using GPL'ed software as RMS has for not using proprietary software.

Re:not stupid at all

[Anonymous Coward]

GPL is not an end-user license, and while EULAs are, they might not hold up in court.

Software doesn't need an end-user license any more than a book needs one.

Re:not stupid at all

[swillden]

People working at places like Microsoft may be prohibited from using GPL'ed software and will likely stop the installer once the GPL license is displayed.

Assuming they didn't realize the software was GPL'd, a simple notice, such as that suggested in the GNU guide to using the GPL, would accomplish the same purpose, without looking like an EULA.

Giving people up-front information about what the license and redistribution terms are is important for everybody: both open source users and open source foes.

Certainly. But it's not necessary to make it look like an EULA, and there are good reasons not to.

Re:not stupid at all

[oohshiny]

GPL is not an end-user license, and while EULAs are, they might not hold up in court.

You seem to be living in a dreamworld; of course, large parts of EULAs are enforceable because they have already been enforced. If the courts ruled them unenforceable, Congress would simply change the law.

And even if they weren't there is still nothing wrong with presenting the GPL in the same form as a EULA. EULA or not, that point in the install is the right place to be clear about what the licensing terms are and to get people to acknowledge them. Whether that acknowledgement has any legal significance doesn't matter.

Re:not stupid at all

[Anonymous Coward]

>You seem to be living in a dreamworld; of course, large parts of EULAs are enforceable because they have already been enforced.

The large parts that have been enforced are usually the overly verbose sections that say you don't get to make copies of the program and the sections that say you only get to run it on one computer. That's simply because that's what COPYRIGHT says (or, generally, is interpreted as for computers). Parts that say things like "we may steal your personal data at any time we like" ususally aren't enforced because, no surprise, there's no SPYWARE act. :-)

I expect the same of sections of EULA's, like some of Microsoft's, that make using them to write negative reviews illegal would never be held up. Again, there's no NEGATIVE PRESS act. Though libel is illegal. I guess if you lied enough in your review you might get in trouble. Probably MS would claim it's their EULA that did it for them, rather than say the truth, that good old regular everyday law protected them. But what can you expect from a known criminal?

If I write a EULA that says "thou shalt not kill", and you decide to do that, and get locked up, was it my EULA that was enforced, or the criminal code? I'd probably suggest it was the crmimnal code, not the EULA.

Re:not stupid at all

[Anonymous Coward]

Parent is correct. MS employees are prohibited from using certain software. My friend there was griping about having to use Word instead of Tex.

Re:not stupid at all

[Anonymous Coward]

Presenting something which has no legal significance is like e-mailing an urban legend as news. Nothing wrong you say? Legally no, but morally you either waste people's time, or you confuse them.

GPL itself suggests a shorter notice!

[ChaosDiscord]

Given the choice between inserting the GPL into the EULA section of commonly used installer software, or opening themselves up to huge potential liability,...

Of course, this isn't a binary choice. You're perfectly free to excerpt the disclaimer and display just that. Indeed, the example offered for people adding the GPL to their program is quite short. The GPL's "How to apply" section specifically suggests showing this short message when your program starts. For reference, here's the suggestion. It's short enough that mroe people will read it, it clearly warns that users get no warranty and provide directions on how to see the full disclaimer. It also tells users of their free software rights, and gives directions on learning about that as well.

Gnomovision version 69, Copyright (C) year name of author Gnomovision comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `show w'. This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it under certain conditions; type `show c' for details.

(Obviously you're supposed to change the "show w" and "show c" to something else if appropriate, say "Select Help > Warranty" and "Select Help > License".)

Re:GPL itself suggests a shorter notice!

[lawhack]

+1. Well said.

MOD PARENT UP

[swillden]

This is an excellent suggestion. It's short, sweet, and follows the recommendations from the FSF. Couple it with the other suggestion to do away with the "Accept" and "Cancel" buttons and replace them with a "Cool!" or "Great!" button, and I think you have an approach that:

1. Gives users the information they need, including the lack of warranty.
2. Gives users a significantly *different* experience than they're used to with commercial software.
3. Makes clear that this software is distributed in a way which is much better, and less constraining, than what they're used to.

In short, I think it's idea.

Now, any ideas about how to convince projects to take this approach?

It is crucial the user know the details of the GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's say a user receives a GPL program on 2 cds, one with the binaries, and the other with the source. He installs the binary, really likes the program and tells all his friends about it. They all want a copy now so he gives then a copy of the 1st cd. It is not important to know the HE is legally responsible to ensure in that his friends can obtain a copy of the source CD up until the time that the copyright expires. Otherwise, he is in violation of the GPL (ie. violation of copyright laws) by not distributing the source. According to the FSF, every linux distribution must have its own copy of the sources since it is their responsibility that the source is available, not the upstream provider. Why would it be any different for a "mini-distribution" of a single package?

Re:It is crucial the user know the details of the

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, that should read, 'Is it not important ....?', rather than 'It is not important'....

Relief!

[WgT2]

I'm actually releaved when I know that the software I'm installing is GPL (for certain). So, seeing that pop up is merely confirmation to me that I can go ahead and freely use the software and to a much lesser extent, modify it, etc.

As far as licensing goes, any thing you produce should be immediately copyrighted or smacked with a license, GPL, BSD, or otherwise, so that you may retain whatever power you wanted over it, lest someone else stumble upon it.

So, I think I should not expect to see a EULA except in the most liberal of BSD licensed software.

Re:Relief!

[Bloater]

> As far as licensing goes, any thing you produce should be immediately copyrighted or smacked with a license, GPL, BSD, or otherwise, so that you may retain whatever power you wanted over it, lest someone else stumble upon it.

In the country I live in and in many others, any work is automatically copyrighted, and all rights reserved by default. That means if you receive something, unless you are told otherwise, you may not copy it except as required to use it, you many not show it publically, etc.

Re:Relief!

[WgT2]

I'd heard about that.

Sure makes some things a little bit easier.

a sign foolish developers

[coaxial]

Everytime a program displays a click-wrap GPL it shows that the developer has a fundamental misunderstanding of just what the GPL is. It's a source license, not a user license. There's no restrictions on what you can do when running the software, just on what you can do with source code. Frankly, I think the rise of clik-wrap GPLs are just some dev wanting to look 1337 since every other program he has a click through license.

You're as bad as Stallman

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not interested in hearing a regurgitation of Stallman's "total freedom devolves into feudalism," line...primarily because said line is utter bullshit.

Followed by:

The bottom line is that for as long as the GPL legislates downstream use, it will continue to be violated, because legislation of downstream use (for good *or* bad) is not in accordance with the greater balance of human desire.

Is a bad argument. If Stallman in bullshitting us by taking unproven/disproven assumptions for fact, you're doing exactly the same, on the same global scale: you presume to know the desire of the entire human race, just like Stallman does. Please prove your assumptions about human desires if you are going to bring them up in an argument.

I have to disagree

[pugugly]

The point of a standard click to install EULA is that, after downloading the program, the license agreement wishes to set terms, a violation of contract law. The contract should be agreed prior to delivery of the product, to remove the rights you would have under the U.S and local laws *after* payment should be formally illegal.

This is not what the GPL does - the GPL states after the fact that you have you're regular rights under U.S. law as you should. In addition to those rights, if you are willing to be bound by the limits of the GPL, you have additional rights. This is in fact an additional negotiation, and there is nothing unethical about it's being added after the initial delivery. The GPL is doing it exactly right, as it *should* be done under the law.

What *needs* to be done is get the other use invalidated.

Pug

Can't avoid it in OS X, apparently

[rlk]

I'm told by our OS X packager (Gutenprint) that the standard OS X installer template must have a license that it will present and ask for agreement -- essentially, the click-through license is a mandatory field, although you can put whatever you like in there. I don't remember offhand exactly what we put in there (since it has been a while since I've installed it on OS X), but I had been thinking of putting the GPL along with a statement up front that merely installing or using Gutenprint does not require agreement with the GPL and that therefore by clicking "I agree" the user is not stating agreement with the GPL.

It says something that Apple doesn't think anyone's ever going to distribute a software package that doesn't carry a EULA, though.

The R Project no longer does this

[djmurdoch]

Despite arguing (with tongue in cheek) that a click-through is a good idea, in the latest release of R I removed the requirement. The license is still displayed, but there's no requirement to "agree" to it to continue with installation.

For people who are handling the installers for other projects: this was a one line change to our Inno Setup script, from

LicenseFile=${SRCDIR}\\COPYING

to

InfoBeforeFile=${SRCDIR}\\COPYING

I include the GPL in MSI license dialogs

[Xenophon Fenderson,]

I've re-packaged a few GPL-ed (and ZPL-ed) programs as Windows Installer (MSI) packages. I always include the applicable license text in an Agree/Disagree dialog box, as I feel that (a) end users should be aware of the terms governing the use of software in their possession, and that (b) it is necessary to agree to the terms of these licenses in order to be able to use, to copy, and to modify the covered software. The GPL et al operate on a legal theory that assumes the acceptance of the license when someone uses, copies, or modifies the covered work (otherwise, that person has no legal right to use, copying, or modification). In creating that license dialog box, I am merely making explicit this assumed license acceptance.

Of course, these EULA dialogs are generally ignored by all end users, so the whole question is practically moot, anyway.

(I'm not a lawyer. This isn't legal advice. I could be very well wrong, legally, ethically, and morally.)

Re:I include the GPL in MSI license dialogs

[Todd Knarr]

Except that the GPL doesn't require acceptance of any license to merely use the software. And it says so explicitly.

The GPL isnt a EULA

[Tweekster]

it doesnt matter to the end user, because it doesnt dictate what a user can do with it.

it only matters to people that want to develop and or redistribute it.

The GPL is irrelevant to the user, it doesnt matter to them in any way, shape or form

Of course not.

[Lord Bitman]

The GPL does not require you to accept the GPL in order to /use/ the software. Implying otherwise violates the GPL.

Re:Of course not.

[julesh]

Implying otherwise violates the GPL.

No it doesn't. You're perfectly free to lie while distributing GPL software.

It shouldn't Say "I Agree" but rather "Thanks"

[darkonc]

First of all, you don't 'agree to' the GPL, you invoke it in order to have the right to redistribute your copy. You don't have to agree to anything to use GPL. Once you have your copies, you can do anything that copyright allows you to.
Just like you don't have to agree to the laws of the road every time you start (or buy) a car, you don't have to agree to follow copyright when you're just using or instaling GPL software. All that displaying the GPL on install does is tell you what your extended rights are and how you can access them. If you don't agree to the GPL then either get permission for non-GPL distribution from the authors, or don't do anything illegal with it (i.e. don't break copyright and you'll be fine).

If anything, the continue button should just say...

Gee, thanks!

Nothing more is needed. and 'I agree' buttons just perpetuate the rather questionable legitimacy of proprietary 'click-through' pages that purport to give the authors the rights to your first-born and conjugal rights to your partner if you install the software that you've just bought for $495.

Re:It is crucial the user know the details of the

[John.P.Jones]

Good point, for example if a user is participating in sharing an iso for a linux distribution via bit-torrent but is not doing the same for the source they are in violation because they are distribuiting GPLed code. I am certain many people have un-knowingly disobeyed the GPL by doing just this, afterall there is much smaller demand for the source and the user can get it elsewhere so why not just share this ISO I just downloaded.

In systems where sharing is forced just downloading the binary is an infraction since you will then share the binary and not the source.

Time saver

[Warbothong]

In my experience the GPL is a great time saver, since having a license appear whenever a program is installed gets tiresome. This is obviously needed by proprietary programs, where they all have their own stupid death-yoga clauses, but merely putting a notice like "This program is distributed under the GNU GPL version 2, see the file COPYING for details" on the first screen of an installer (I am assuming you are on about Windows installation wizards here, and not some kind of Debian package installer, because that would definetly be a no-no) is sufficient, since many users have already read the GPL. After reading the GNU GPL, GNU LGPL, BSD, Mozilla, X11 and a couple of other licenses there is no real reason to read any more since most computer uses can be accomplished with programs under those.

That is not a problem

[spitzak]

The error with this argument is that by *default* you are not allowed to copy anything, as it violates copyright. Any user seeing a "(C) somebody" in the help box should assumme they cannot copy anything, and thus they will not violate the GPL. I think showing the GPL (thus explaining that you can copy it if you follow certain rules) is probably counter-productive because it will confuse most people, such as you, into thinking it is a EULA. If the person wants his friend to have a copy they can send the download URL and not violate anything.

Why did Parliament word it that way?

[tepples]

Does the UK Parliament keep a public record of the discussions that led to a particular wording?

Re:Why did Parliament word it that way?

[julesh]

Yes, it's called Hansard; you can access a searchable copy of it at http://www.theyworkforyou.com/.

Re:Why did Parliament word it that way?

[tepples]

Does the database of theyworkforyou.com go back to the late 1980s, when the current form of the UK copyright law was enacted? My query (copyright computer program) did not turn up any results prior to 2003.

Uh doesn't anyone read the GPL?

[Anonymous Coward]

From http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt

5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.

Displaying it as information, "The software herein contained is distributed under the GPL which you may read by clicking this button", is fine, but prohibiting the installation of GPL software seems somewhat against the licence. Not illegal as such but kind of silly and definitely not enforceable.
And not in the sense of "should EULAs be legally enforcable?" but in the sense of even if EULAs were enforceable, the GPL outright says that someone who isn't distributing or modifying the source, doesn't have to agree.

Acutally, I like the idea.

[gurps_npc]

I think that no one should be legally allowed to write their own click-wrap EULA.

Instead, if people want to use a click-wrap, it should be approved by an outside agency.

That way, you don't have to read 50,000 of the silly things.

You just read say 10 or 20 of them and know that you can agree to click on the EULA approved by "Consumer Protections Association", but not the one from "Record Publisher's Stealing House".