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?"
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.
Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
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.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
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.
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.
...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.
Why would using the CLI mean you know anything about copyright law?
Anyway, the point is that it's crappy user interface design.
http://outcampaign.org/
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:
In short, I think it's idea.
Now, any ideas about how to convince projects to take this approach?
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
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.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
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?
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.
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
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
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.
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
The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis