Wireshark-users: Re: [Wireshark-users] Windows installer bug: Users shouldn't have to accept GNU
From: "ronnie sahlberg" <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 09:14:53 +0000
I dont really understand.

Exactly what is the problem with displaying the GPL to the user and
enforce that the user clicks on a button such as "Accept" ?


It is a good thing if users are educated about the GPL.

The users should be informed about the GPL and should have to press an
"Accept" button before wireshark is installed   since it is in the
users best interest to understand what licence the software is
distributed under.



It would be a disservice to our users if we do not display the entire
GPL and require that they click "Accept".
This so that there is no confusion about whether the user can link
some of the DLLs from our package with their own non-GPL software.
It would be easier to make these kind of mistakes as a user if the
licence is not very clearly displayed during install.


Another point is that wireshark is distributed with several large
packages and DLLs from OTHER projects as well.
It would not be proper for wireshark developers to decide for those
other product developers whether the GPL is to be displayed or if a
different worded interpretation of it instead.

Before we remove the Accept button or the GPL text   we should first
get approval for those changes from all those other packages first.


While we can ask those other developers if they are ok with
1, not displaying the GPL  and instead a more vague "do what you want"
2, no Accept button to accept the licence.

I do think they would ask the question : WHY?

Before we have a really good A to WHY    I can not see how the other
projects will accept us to change our installer   that distributes
their software.






IMHO   changing the licence text   or changing the Accept button to
something else that does NOT indicate acceptance of the licence   is a
NO GO.




The first step would be to contact the developers for all other
software that is part of the distribution and get their OK with the
new text and the "no accept button required" thing.

Once every and all of them has given their approval    we can discuss
this on wireshark.   not before.



On 9/22/06, Shawn Willden <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thursday 21 September 2006 14:39, Ulf Lamping wrote:
> > "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!

I'm not proposing adding any additional interpretation to the GPL, just a
very
brief introduction to tell users why they may or may not care to read the
GPL.

> There are far too many open source licenses already floating around.

I agree, but that isn't really relevant.

> 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.

Perhaps.  As a native speaker, I would expect it to simply get rid of that
window.  If "Ok" is more universally clear, that's fine.  "Next" might be
better.

> 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!

Again, I'm not proposing any interpretation.  Just trying to clarify that
users do not, in fact, need to agree to any license terms in order to
install
and run the software.  I suppose that the notion that they don't need to
agree to it might be an interpretation, but the FSF's GPL FAQ is pretty
clear
on the point.

If you really want to make sure that no reinterpretation of the GPL is
risked,
perhaps something like:

"Wireshark is distributed under the GNU General Public License.  The text of
the license is presented here for your information, but you do not need to
read or agree to it to install and run this software."

Is that better?

Thanks,

        Shawn.
_______________________________________________
Wireshark-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-users