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"
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.
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.
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!).
Infuriate left and right
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.
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.
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.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
...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/
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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