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

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.

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: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.

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: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.

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.

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.