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.
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.
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.
...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.
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