Shawn Willden wrote:
This may seem like a minor point, but I think it's significant, because it
perpetuates the idea that you have to virtually sign some agreement before you
can use some software. Much of the point of the GPL is to show that there is
another way (and, we think, a *better* way), so it's unfortunate to have GPL
software reinforcing the wrong idea.
I understand your point and mostly agree to it.
My suggestion is to retain the display of the GPL upon installation, but put a
heading on top that is something like:
"This is Free Software, and you are free to use it all you like, with no
restrictions or conditions. If you want to give copies of it to other people,
or to change it, you can do that, too, but there are some limitations designed
to make sure that whoever you give it to has the same freedoms you do. The
details are described below:"
I don't think it will help the users in the long run, that any GPL'ed
program will add it's own interpretation to the GPL!
Otherwise you'll end up just like the myriad of slightly different BSD
like licenses floating around.
Let the user learn the GPL once, so he can apply it's knowledge without
rethinking a slightly enhanced license again and again.
There are far too many open source licenses already floating around.
Also, the "Accept" button (or is it "Agree"? I'd have to go look again)
should say "Okay" or perhaps even better "Dismiss".
Comments?
I wouldn't have any problem if someone changes the "Accept" to an "Ok"
button (however, it will be some more work than it seems IMO). Dismiss
is an unexpected term, as a not native english speaker I would expect
the installer to terminate in that case.
But: I don't like the idea to add any interpretation to the GPL! I'm not
a lawyer and I don't know what this will actually mean in lawyers speak
and don't want to have any surprise.
The developers (including myself) put this software under the GPL and so
be it! I don't like the idea to add any interpretation of this license
in the installer or elsewhere!
Regards, ULFL
