Should the GPL be Used as a Click-Wrap? 200
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?"
Summary... (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Summary... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We both know this is incorrect and that the GPL is still binding on distribution, not usage, but it would generally cause trouble.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We both know this is incorrect and that the GPL is still binding on distribution, not usage, but it would generally cause trouble.
Only for as long as it took said corporate types to have a discussion with their attorney, after receiving a cease and desist letter from the software's copyright holder. There's a good reason that so few GPL disputes have made it anywhere near a courtroom, you know.
Re: (Score:2)
THIS PROGRAM IS FREE FOR YOU TO USE
Read the actual terms [ here ],
specially if you'll distribute or modify it.
[ CONTINUE ]
The [ here ] button opens the GPL text.
(I tried to add a box around the window,
but was not in the mood to fight the lame filter)
Why the F*** are we doing this? (Score:2)
Better yet: Don't waste my time prompting me with crap every time I want to install software.
Imagine if your favourite *nix package manager, ports tree, or build system prompted you with "legal info" for every single piece of software you tried to install. Or every library.
Click-wrap is the some of the most annoying and pointless bullshit users put up with, and they really shouldn't have to.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
And cmdline installation methods wouldn't prompt, they suppose you know what you're doing.
This dialog thing is meant for end users who click on a package icon on his KDE/Gnome file browser, or run an installation binary.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why would using the CLI mean you know anything about copyright law?
Anyway, the point is that it's crappy user interface design.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 ca
Re: (Score:2)
In order for people to fight for freedom, they essentially need to know two things: first they need to know what freedom is, and second they need to know that they don't have it. As this applies to free software, people need to understand what it means for software to be free, and they have to understand how people and companies go about taking away that freedom.
People are pretty much used to shrinkwrap EULAs, I would be surprised if anyone ever actually read the license that
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At least the licence is headed with "GNU General Public License" so I don't actually have to read it for the millionth time.
Re: (Score:2)
Corporate packaging (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, maybe, but people do routinely point out that the GPL doesn't require that you agree with its provisions. If you don't agree, you simply don't follow the extra rights that it gives you. You just use the software like you would anything else, under the terms of your local copyright laws. You don't need anyone's permission to do that. And it doesn't matter whether or not you agree with the copyright laws; they are in effect whether
Re: (Score:2)
The only way I can see this as CYA is in a corporate environment, it would protect (in a very small way) the distributor from accusations by someone who reused the code in an application that was released in a way that contravened the GPL.
I've seen some corporate lawyers go bats over developers and techies who downloaded tools, and some of the developers tried to claim they were unaware of licensing limitations on copying the code.
Just a thoug
Stupid (Score:5, Informative)
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.
not stupid at all (Score:3, Insightful)
Generally, I'm against installers that require any interaction; I think they are a nuisance. But since they are standard on Windows and Maci
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
People like me will likely stop the installer if it doesn't say that the software is covered by some open source license.
Giving people up-front information about what the license and redistribution terms are is important for everybody: both open source users and open source foes.
Could be used strategically (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
You must be kidding (Score:2)
less then 1% actualy read any of that stuff.
It might even backfire ' see, this free stuff isnt really free, it had some legal jargon i had to click ok for '
Re: (Score:2)
When I run free software I see no adds, few splash screens and no EULAs.
It is part of what makes free software different. Giving up and saying "okay, we'll have EULAs too is like saying, okay, we'll have DRM too, we'll just default to setting everything off." You lose an opportunity to make users think 'hey, cool, no stupid licence I have to scroll through without reading.'
Re: (Score:2)
People are used to going through EULAs
But that's exactly the issue, and why I asked the question. People *are* used to going through EULA's, and that's something that is wrong with the state of software today. The point is that the GPL offers a better way, a way that not only allows modification and redistribution, but also a way that specifically does not require you to agree to any pile of legalese in order to use a piece of software that you obtained legally.
My position is that GPL authors should
But you do have to abide by the terms... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
No You Don't (Have To Abide By the Terms) (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It gives visibility to the GPL (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Over freeware? To a geek, maybe. But geeks are already aware of the GPL, AND the flamewar surrounding GPL3. To a typical clueless end user, they're both free, and beyond that, they don't give a damn.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's a lot of true freeware out there thats not open source -- if I were you I wouldn't be so dismissive of closed-source software since you might miss good stuff for the sake of ideology. Then again, if the ideology behind open source is worth more to you, I can respect that choice as
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That said, a case can be made that anything using the GPL isn't truely "free" either, since there are still limitations attached (though the limitations are on the distribution and use of source, NOT in the use of the software from an end-user standpoint). Or the Apache lic
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Worse than that, the GPL expressly forbids such a thing. From section 5 of the GPL [gnu.org]:
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 violat
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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'
Re: (Score:2)
Button one: GO TO PAYMENT (5)
Button two: Read the Fine Licence
This would enable people that enjoy being ignorant to be parted with a small amount of money
and people that are either allready knowledgable or just willing to learn to use the "Free (as in speach)" freely (as in beer)
It's certainly a bad idea, but I'm still happy I had it
Never gave much thought... (Score:2)
I see EULA's not as legal agreements, as I come from The Netherlands - we do ofcourse have contracts, but all are governed by law, and some of the things that are in a contract thus don't necessarily have to apply to you as a user - you also have to sign a contract to accept it.
I see EULA's much more as an understanding between the user and the developer - an expectation. In the case of GPL, the click t
The GPL isn't a EULA (Score:2)
The GPL is irrelevent to someone who is simply using a piece of software.
Bad idea (Score:3, Informative)
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 [copyright.gov].
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.
Re: (Score:2)
You could not possibly be more wrong. You own software in exactly the same way that you own a book.
Disclaimer of Warranty & Liability (Score:5, Insightful)
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! (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [gnu.org]" 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".)
MOD PARENT UP (Score:3, Interesting)
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:
Cool! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I hope that idea is not copyrighted
Ideas cannot be copyrighted. Well, mostly.
Re: (Score:2)
Short answer: NO! (Score:2)
Now the long answer:
There is nothing forbiding you from asking the user to accept the license, although it is a bit confusing, since the user doesn't have to accept it to use the software.
But the problem with that dialog is that it makes it difficult to bundle software. Imagine what would happen if all the libraries you use showed a dialog to the user at install time. I guess nobody would use your software, ever (that is not a hypotetical situation, you can see it by downloading DevC++ and instaling a few
Not just bad, possibly a GPL violation itself (Score:2)
The GPL shouldn't be presented as an EULA, because it isn't one. Sections 0 and 5 both make it abundantly clear that you do not need to agree to the GPL to merely use the software. Presenting the GPL as an EULA isn't consistent with those sections.
In fact, the software's author may even argue that a distributor who presents the GPL as an EULA where declining it causes the software to not be installed is in fact violating the GPL themselves. The requirement to agree with the GPL before use would be an addit
Not the distributor's fault? (Score:2)
Its a distribution licence not an end user licence (Score:2)
Caused by 3rd party installers? (Score:2, Interesting)
That's always been my assumption when I've seen the GPL in a click-through....
grnbrg.
Patch the work to ditch it (Score:2)
Just as useful for GPL as EULA (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Solution (Score:2, Insightful)
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,
The bottom line... (Score:4, Interesting)
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 [gnu.org], 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.
Re: (Score:2)
The GPL aims to restrict only one "freedom": the freedom to restrict other people's freedoms. It says simply that if I as the original author granted everyone certain freedoms, you as a distributor or modifier of my code are not free to take away those freedoms and if you try you lose your right to be a distributor or modifier. Certainly this restricts your freedoms, but most people using the GPL don't see that as anything worse than laws against theft restricting the freedom of thieves to steal.
Re: (Score:2)
The GPL has no legal force outside that granted by copyright law. It's just permission granted to you to copy, modify and distribute software you received under its terms. It has nothing to say about usage or clickwraps.
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 chang
It is crucial the user know the details of the GPL (Score:2, Interesting)
Relief! (Score:2, Interesting)
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 e
Re: (Score:2)
In the country I live in and in many others, any work is automatically copyrighted, and all rights reserved by default. That means if you receive something, unless you are told otherwise, you may not copy it except as required to use it, you many not show it publically, etc.
a sign foolish developers (Score:2)
I have to disagree (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Can't avoid it in OS X, apparently (Score:2)
The R Project no longer does this (Score:2)
For people who are handling the installers for other projects: this was a one line change to our Inno Setup [jrsoftware.org] script, from
LicenseFile=${SRCDIR}\\COPYING
to
InfoBeforeFile=${SRCDIR}\\COPYING
The GPL isnt a EULA (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:2)
As long as you don't modify or derive from or distribute the software, yes you can quite ignore it.
Re: (Score:2)
You can modify and derive from it all you want and still ignore the license.
It's only if you decide to distribute those modifications that the GPL is relevant.
But.. INAL.
-metric
Re: (Score:2)
It's only if you decide to distribute those modifications that the GPL is relevant.
But.. INAL.
And I believe you are wrong because copyright law stops you from modifying and deriving from. The GPL however permits it. Consequentely, without accepting the GPL, copyright law applies and you are not allowed to modify or derive.
Re: (Score:2)
The DMCA added other stuff (eg, unauthorized decryption of a copyrighted work), but that's fairly recent and not universally applicable.
Re: (Score:2)
106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works36
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership,
The GPL has nothing to do with using software (Score:4, Informative)
But yes, you can ignore the GPL in order to use software. It is a license to distribute, not to use (or to kill!).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You should read Free Culture [free-culture.cc] for an understanding of why copyright controls everything in the digital age, particularly the "PROPERTY" chapter and especially pages 139 onwards.
Re: (Score:2)
I have actually read Free Culture, by the way. I don't remember reading anything that paranoid in it. I've been meaning to read it again sometime though, so I might start tonight ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure Lessig knows of case law to back his statements up, he is a copyright lawyer after all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not quite. See USC Title 17 Section 117 [cornell.edu] 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.
17 USC 117 (Score:2)
Get real. I quote from Title 17, United States Code, Section 117 [bitlaw.com]:
Re: (Score:2)
Your claim is completely and 100% incorrect. [cornell.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 la
Re: (Score:2)
You need to download a copy of the program before you can use it and/or copy it from the distribution medium to the hard drive.
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.
So, if I buy a burned copy
Re: (Score:2)
You need to obtain it somehow, obviously. Note that in most cases, at least some of the copying you do in the process of obtaining the software occurs *before* you run the installer and potentially indicate your agreement to the terms of the GPL. I suppose you could argue that you've implicitly agreed to the terms of the GPL even before installing. That, of course, raises the q
Re: (Score:2)
So under what license was the installation performed? I'm not a
Re: (Score:2)
You are an ignoramous. The copyright laws certainly cover copying, that's why they explicitly tell you that running a program or copying in other ways required for running it are not infringement.
This language dates from the 1980's because some software companies worried that if they copyrighted their software they would need a signed contract
Re: (Score:2)
I think you need to familiarize yourself with that area of the law. Care to cite some court cases in which running a program without a license was judged to be fair use? You are aware that the US Code does not mean a thing, right? The US legal system is based on precedent, not code. That's why we have lawyers.
In they 1990's Congress add
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Case closed. You ARE an idiot.
For example, under your understanding of the law, how do you explain this court ruling, in which providing copies of sim city and word perfect and other copyrighten software to any and all downloaders was ruled legal ?
This was a legal loophole before the
Re: (Score:2)
Except that the GPL doesn't require acceptance of any license to merely use the software. And it says so explicitly.