Slashdot Mirror
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?"
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.
Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Find free books.
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.
(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".)
Search 2010 Gen Con events