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

Summary...

[Vo0k]

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.

Re:Summary...

[Vo0k]

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.

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.

Disclaimer of Warranty & Liability

[cortana]

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.

GPL itself suggests a shorter notice!

[ChaosDiscord]

Given the choice between inserting the GPL into the EULA section of commonly used installer software, or opening themselves up to huge potential liability,...

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.

Gnomovision version 69, Copyright (C) year name of author Gnomovision comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `show w'. This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it under certain conditions; type `show c' for details.

(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".)