[News] More EULA Craziness
Roy Schestowitz
,----[ Quote ]
| Paragraph 3C of the EULA states that while the software
| is running, you can use but not share its icons, images,
| sounds and media.
|
| If Microsoft means to word the EULA this way, that implies
| you can't use projectors or linked video monitors if there's
| more than one human being present.
|
| It also implies that you can't take a screen shot of the
| Vista desktop.
`----
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35108
Debian's disagreement to copyrights and trademarks
(e.g. Firefox logo) seems to address such unacceptable
treatment of the end-user.
peterwn
Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> Vista EULA restricts display to one person
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Paragraph 3C of the EULA states that while the software
> | is running, you can use but not share its icons, images,
> | sounds and media.
> |
> | If Microsoft means to word the EULA this way, that implies
> | you can't use projectors or linked video monitors if there's
> | more than one human being present.
> |
to pay a 'Microsoft tax' on every projector manufactured.
Erik Funkenbusch
Yet many GPL products have "click-thru" shinkwrap GPL licenses, that you
must agree to, to simply install and USE the software.
Peter Köhlmann
They do? Provide examples
--
Microsoft's Guide To System Design:
It could be worse, but it'll take time.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
examples?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFNDaVd90bcYOAWPYRAqIjAJ9jgiDGnF3fZdR19vRP/50rE0OZWACeJFn3
FZ1ibR3oAgyJJaJglev6SKs=
=/FvW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Have you ever noticed that sanction, is it's own antonym?
The Ghost In The Machine
<peter.k...@t-online.de>
wrote
on Tue, 17 Oct 2006 00:52:21 +0200
<eh12ck$mqm$02$1...@news.t-online.com>:
The GPL apparently requires that the following be
prominently displayed somewhere, though this is not
strictly speaking part of the formal T&C (since it's just
after it):
<one line to give the program's name and a brief idea of
what it does.>
Copyright (C) <year> <name of author>
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version.
This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
GNU General Public License for more details.
You should have received a copy of the GNU General
Public License along with this program; if not, write to
the Free Software Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin Street,
Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA.
or
<progname> version ##, Copyright (C) year name of author
<progname> comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type
<command>
This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it
under certain conditions; type <command> for details.
However, I for one do not have to read the GPL or LGPL for
programs under it (apparently Gentoo scripts consider this
an exception), though other license types may have to be
read and agreed to.
As for taking screen shots of the desktop, what is
Microsoft trying to do, shoot itself in the head? Ye gods.
I'm hoping this is a temporary restriction but one wonders.
And then there's the issue of what's running. If I'm not
mistaken, Vista will have a SHELL.EXE [*] (much like Win95,
only more comprehensive), which, much like a Unix shell,
only graphical, typically waits for user input such as a
mouse click and then does the right thing, usually opening
a file (which translates into execution of a program or
script if the file being opened ends in .EXE, .BAT, .WSH,
and some other extensions). The rest of the time, it just
sort of sits there, although it is occupying a process slot
(or the Windows equivalent thereof). For its part, sharing
is presumably the exporting of a directory containing the
icons/images to the CIFS/SMB system, assuming one can do
that anyway on a non-business Vista system.
Congratulations, Microsoft. You've muddled things yet again.
[*] not to be confused with the add-on PowerShell.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
/dev/signature: Not a text file
Erik Funkenbusch
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 17:34:44 -0500,
> Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
>> On 16 Oct 2006 07:03:49 -0700, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
>>> Vista EULA restricts display to one person
>>>
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>| Paragraph 3C of the EULA states that while the software
>>>| is running, you can use but not share its icons, images,
>>>| sounds and media.
>>>|
>>>| If Microsoft means to word the EULA this way, that implies
>>>| you can't use projectors or linked video monitors if there's
>>>| more than one human being present.
>>>|
>>>| It also implies that you can't take a screen shot of the
>>>| Vista desktop.
>>> `----
>>>
>>> http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35108
>>>
>>> Debian's disagreement to copyrights and trademarks
>>> (e.g. Firefox logo) seems to address such unacceptable
>>> treatment of the end-user.
>>
>> Yet many GPL products have "click-thru" shinkwrap GPL licenses, that you
>> must agree to, to simply install and USE the software.
>
> examples?
I recently installed Gaim on Windows, and it required several click-thru's
having to agree to the GPL. VNC did the same.
There was even a recent slashdot article about this:
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 22:01:07 -0500,
You are in error, there is no requirement to agree to any GPL
"clickthrouhg" which is what you claimed.
They display the GPL sure, but there's no requirement for you to agree
to it in order to install or use it. That's just ErikFud.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFNEtLd90bcYOAWPYRAiCFAJ4k1YLyoOUbvN44MwK+u1GRhn3e4gCeKcbs
u6oRBQpvH/A/ewehJej7dEI=
=f+L/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Noise proves nothing. Often a hen who has merely laid an egg cackles
as if she laid an asteroid.
-- Mark Twain
Erik Funkenbusch
Then why do they call it an "agreement" if you're not agreeing to it?
From the GAIM dialog:
License Agreement
Please review the license terms before installing GAIM 2.0.0beta3.1
Why do I need to review the license terms before I can install it if I'm
not subject to them?
Similar "Agreement" pages popped up when installing GTK+ and ASpell.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 23:26:19 -0500,
That's nice. However, saying, doesn't make it so. There's no EULA for
gaim et al, and GPL is not an EULA. You have not shown an example of
something that backs up your claim you "must agree to, to simply install
and USE the software."
Try again Erik, this time, try harder. Please show me a GPL licence that
requires you to agree to it, in order to install and use the software.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFNGhwd90bcYOAWPYRAvwDAJwOtahupnAVQjIwhkQXe8ZVCmZbZgCgrFfv
WPS//x8XAX2F3T0PN+f+W9g=
=iQWu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Some people are born normal, some people achieve normality, and some
have normalcy thrust upon them by a nice nurse with a hypodermic.
Roy Schestowitz
wjbell
> Try again Erik, this time, try harder. Please show me a GPL licence that
> requires you to agree to it, in order to install and use the software.
"PLEASE READ THIS LICENSE CAREFULLY BEFORE INSTALLING OR USING THE
GET_FILE TECHNIQUE SOFTWARE. BY DOWNLOADING, INSTALLING, AND/OR USING
THE SOFTWARE, YOU ARE AGREEING TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE.
IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE, YOU ARE NOT AUTHORIZED
TO DOWNLOAD, INSTALL, AND/OR USE THIS SOFTWARE."
http://www.fmpsolutions.com/On-Line%20Docs/Get_File%20Docs/docs/legal.htm
"Qt
To avoid some compilation errors, you will want to have Qt installed
before you compile KDE4. This will get the KDE-customized version from
the repository for you. Make sure you read and agree to the QPL and GPL
before you use the -confirm-license flag. Procede as follows: "
http://developer.kde.org/build/trunk.html
"Download the latest 4.X firmware( usually in the "latest release"
section of the downloads page.) You will have to agree to both the GPL
and the Intel Software License Agreement. The Unslung firmware uses
GPL'ed code and it also uses Intel(R) IXP400 Software."
http://wiki.arslinux.com/Unslung_on_the_NSLU2
... to name a few from a quick search.
squ...@postmaster.co.uk
Jim Richardson wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
> > I recently installed Gaim on Windows, and it required several click-thru's
> > having to agree to the GPL. VNC did the same.
> >
> > There was even a recent slashdot article about this:
> >
> > http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/14/232217
>
> You are in error, there is no requirement to agree to any GPL
> "clickthrouhg" which is what you claimed.
>
> They display the GPL sure, but there's no requirement for you to agree
> to it in order to install or use it. That's just ErikFud.
>
It's not a legal requirement. It's a technical requirement. The
installer refuses to install if you don't agree to the GPL, even though
it explicitely states that you don't need to agree to the licence.
Tends to be a Windows thing. I think the packaging software insists on
having some text for the EULA.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
Thats nice. Too bad you have such difficulty reading.
there is no requirement to accept the GPL in order to use the code. The
GPL is only relevent if you try to distribute it, or the binaries,
modified, or as stock. Use of the software is not relevent to the GPL.
(although the GPL3 might change that)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFNJL5d90bcYOAWPYRAj0BAKDkQ2+8WWEElduNn0HremKJIAn7xQCfc4dt
N5KNKZ5zsaZBZWscx0AGgIw=
=dvoQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Microsoft - because god hates us
William Poaster
You do begin to wonder if the boy's got something missing, or whether he's
used M$ products for *so* long that he's got the M$ Prisoner Mentality.
I wonder how he goes on opening a can of beans, looking for a licence
before opening it.
I have *never* HAD to accept any GPL, before installing any software
made under it's licence....in fact sometimes I don't read it till *after*
I've installed the app. <grin>
--
Trolls & replies to trolls
are filtered out, as are
googlegroup users.
Hadron Quark
> I have *never* HAD to accept any GPL, before installing any software
> made under it's licence....in fact sometimes I don't read it till *after*
> I've installed the app. <grin>
You read them?
LOL.
wjbell
>>
>> "Qt
>>
>> To avoid some compilation errors, you will want to have Qt installed
>> before you compile KDE4. This will get the KDE-customized version from
>> the repository for you. Make sure you read and agree to the QPL and GPL
>> before you use the -confirm-license flag. Procede as follows: "
>>
>> http://developer.kde.org/build/trunk.html
>
> Thats nice. Too bad you have such difficulty reading.
>
> there is no requirement to accept the GPL in order to use the code.
I guess you really are that dense.
"Make sure you read and agree to the QPL and GPL before
^^^^^ ^^ ^^^
you use the -confirm-license flag"
./configure -qt-gif -no-exceptions -debug -fast -prefix $QTDIR
-confirm-license
HTH
wjbell
Maybe this will help, it has pictures.
"If you agree with the terms, click the checkbox next to "I Accept the
GPL License" and the click the "Next" button. You will not be able to
proceed unless you agree to the license terms."
http://help.joomla.org/content/view/39/132/
Doesn't get much clearer than that. HAND.
wjbell
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
Wow. just when I thought wjbell couldn't get any diumber.
It can *say* it all it wants. Doesn't make it so.
(THank you Voltaire, good sigmonster)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFNZOgd90bcYOAWPYRAktwAJ4qZdRbwCIOdZVIjtQhNki3psyguACgx+uj
H1SKloXr3T9nyh865s/1BZk=
=Svi3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord,
make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it."
-Voltaire
wjbell
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 13:35:47 GMT,
> wjbell <wjb...@none.net> wrote:
>> Jim Richardson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Qt
>>>>
>>>> To avoid some compilation errors, you will want to have Qt installed
>>>> before you compile KDE4. This will get the KDE-customized version from
>>>> the repository for you. Make sure you read and agree to the QPL and GPL
>>>> before you use the -confirm-license flag. Procede as follows: "
>>>>
>>>> http://developer.kde.org/build/trunk.html
>>
>>>
>>> Thats nice. Too bad you have such difficulty reading.
>>>
>>> there is no requirement to accept the GPL in order to use the code.
>>
>> I guess you really are that dense.
>>
>> "Make sure you read and agree to the QPL and GPL before
>> ^^^^^ ^^ ^^^
>> you use the -confirm-license flag"
>>
>> ./configure -qt-gif -no-exceptions -debug -fast -prefix $QTDIR
>> -confirm-license
>>
>> HTH
>
>
> Wow. just when I thought wjbell couldn't get any diumber.
>
> It can *say* it all it wants. Doesn't make it so.
I guess no comment on the two others I posted...
What it *says* is that you must agree to the GPL license before
installing qt. You do this by way of the -confirm-license flag at the
end of your compile options (ya know, before install time).
I believe this, and the others I posted, satisfy your request of, and I
quote:
"Please show me a GPL licence that requires you to agree to it, in order
to install and use the software."
You've been shown.
Now will you admit that you were wrong like an adult or continue to spew
asinine fables about how if you close your eyes while clicking "I
Accept" it doesn't count?
arachnid
So, how deep do you plan to make this hole?
wjbell
I apologize, did I sign into alt.class.smallbus by mistake?
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 03:46:56 GMT,
You seem to have a funny idea of what "require" means. You can legally
install and use all the apps/packages you've given as examples, with no
problem, without ever having to agree to, or even read, the GPL.
Now using the source code in another project? or distributing the
binaries, that's a different matter, and is not what we are discussing.
There is no *requirement* for you to accept the GPL merely to install
and use the software.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFNa/fd90bcYOAWPYRAq57AKCuDj+Ko7OkepYOcE+CIefvULLuUACg6Ufx
YjHYAtP/4vllU84boCMKr7M=
=Cik8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Silence is one of the most effective forms of communication.
Jamie Hart
requires you to read and agree to it before installing and using the
software?
William Poaster
You'll find out when he starts posting in Mandarin!
William Poaster
Not on Trolltech's pages anyway:-
Open Source Qt Downloads
*Unless* you're in a commercial environment and are required to keep the
source code of your product closed, you must use the commercial version
instead. Trolltech's commercial license terms do not allow you to start
developing proprietary software using the Open Source edition.
*Otherwise* you're allowed to use Open Source versions of the Trolltech
products available under the GPL license, because the Open Source
versions of their software are governed by the terms of the GNU GPL
license: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt
Hmmm.......well as usual, there's *nothing* to click on which says "I
agree/accept".
So you go to the download page, & there is *nothing* to agree to before
downloading it.
Qt/X11 Open Source Edition
Tar file
The full Qt/X11 Open Source Edition archive in gzipped tar format. The
archive contains the complete source code of the library and extensions
with full reference documentation. It compiles on most Unix platforms and
some others.
You install it, & again there is *nothing* you *have* to agree to (i.e
click on "I Accept" etc) before you install.
Mark Kent
wjbell <wjb...@none.net> espoused:
You do not need to agree to anything, you /do/ have to abide by the
GPL's terms if you wish to onward-distribute code. You are not allowed
to /not/ agree with the GPL's terms with respect to onward distribution,
but for using something, there's nothing to agree to at all.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
consultant, n.:
Someone who knowns 101 ways to make love, but can't get a date.
Mark Kent
William Poaster <w...@mykubuntu6061.eu> espoused:
It's another angle in the geometry of fud. In this case, it's an
attempt to make the casual reader feel that the MS Eula is essentially
the same thing as the GPL. Whilst this is true at a very basic level
(copyright-law based licence), beyond that, it's quite different. As has
been repeatedly said, using GPLed products does not require agreement to
the GPL. The GPL isn't really something which you can agree to per se,
in that you can't disagree with it either. It's the licence, and it
is what it is. You don't agree to it, you merely abide by its terms.
The MS Eula is a quite different animal (actually, there are hundreds of
them, afairc), all of which seek to reduce your rights down to more or
less zero, and ensure that Microsoft have zero liability for anything
which might happen, you can't blame them for anything, and you haven't
even got a right to the code working. I think you also agree to let
them do anything with the code even after it's been installed now, and
you also agree to a very draconian set of rules regarding what you can
say about it, too.
Mark Kent
Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> espoused:
There's a lot of derision saved for RMS and Debian, /but/, there are
some very important underlying principles to their positions which they
are quite correct to observe and maintain.
We have some very fundamental difficulties with respect to how our legal
systems work, many of the principles having been set up well before any
can of electronic transport or duplication of anything could have been
possible. Indeed, even the projection of images wasn't practical until
lenses had been developed.
Either we need some new laws, or we need some new business models. Or
maybe we need both.
wjbell
The question was:
"Please show me a GPL licence that requires you to agree to it, in order
to install and use the software."
I provided three examples of just that in a quick 10 min search. I'm
sure there's many more.
wjbell
"If you agree with the terms, click the checkbox next to "I Accept the
GPL License" and the click the "Next" button. You will not be able to
proceed unless you agree to the license terms."
You were saying?
>
> Now using the source code in another project? or distributing the
> binaries, that's a different matter, and is not what we are discussing.
Exactly. So why are you bringing it up?
>
> There is no *requirement* for you to accept the GPL merely to install
> and use the software.
"If you agree with the terms, click the checkbox next to "I Accept the
GPL License" and the click the "Next" button.
You will not be able to proceed unless you agree to the license terms."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
wjbell
Mark Kent
You do not need to agree to it. There is only the GPL, there are not
versions of it (other than those issued by the FSF). Its provisions are
clear.
Mark Kent
Yes - where is this magical GPL licence you refer to which has this
requirement?
Mark Kent
Then you should report that back to the FSF, as the GPL is not able to
be used in this way. There is no requirement for you to accept the GPL
to install and use GPLed software.
wjbell
Really? That big "I Agree" button seems to put a hinder on the
installation process if you don't press it.
I've shown you the screen shots that plainly show the original GPL v2 as
the license you must agree to before you proceed with the installation
of the software.
Please stop acting more ridiculous than you already look.
wjbell
All /I/ need to do is show Jim Richardson software that requires you to
agree to the GPL before you are allowed to install it.
He said it doesn't exist.
It does.
He's been shown it does.
This also shows how easily "advocates" throw around myths as fact. They
continually don't know what they are talking about. I've shown that in
this post and most likely will in others as well.
wjbell
Right here:
http://docs.codehaus.org/download/attachments/12837/GeoServerInstall2.gif
I guess you missed it. It's the part that says:
"GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 2, June 1991"
Need any other clues, Columbo?
Jamie Hart
Yes please, where in that license does it require you to read and agree to
it?
Jamie Hart
No he didn't, he said a GPL license that states that you have to read and
agree to it doesn't exist.
You have yet to prove him wrong.
Hadron Quark
The guy is certifiable.
--
"And spellchecker won;t help." : Roy Schwestowitz from comp.os.linux.advocacy.
wjbell
He said nothing about a license you need to *read* and agree to. Get
your facts straight. (although, I'm sure the install license screen
assumes you will read the GPL before you agree to it)
And I quote:
"Please show me a GPL licence that requires you to agree to it, in order
to install and use the software. "
I have shown exactly that.
> You have yet to prove him wrong.
>
I have.
Hadron Quark
> Jamie Hart wrote:
>
>> You have yet to prove him wrong.
>>
>
> I have.
Being sandwiched between Jamie & Mark is a frightening place to be. You
could tell them that water was wet and they would disagree. Your best
bet is to be really rude, then Kier will arrive to chastise you and then
the Gang will question his motives and turn on him ... you
meanwhile, can slip out the back door whistling satisfied with a job
well done.
--
You are a vile asshole, flatfish. : Peter Köhlmann, COLA.
arachnid
> "If you agree with the terms, click the checkbox next to "I Accept the
> GPL License" and the click the "Next" button. You will not be able to
> proceed unless you agree to the license terms."
With 18,000+ projects out there we're bound to have a few authors who
don't understand that they don't have to require users to read and agree
to the GPL before installing. Just because they say you have to, doesn't
mean the GPL requires it.
The whole brilliant thing abut the GPL is that it doesn't take *anything*
away. It only grants rights. The copyright laws don't require you to
agree to them, any more than they require you to agree to the copyright in
a book. They only say that the big bad copyright owner can come after you
if you exceed the rights that have been granted.
OTOH, Microsoft's EULA isn't just about what you *can* do, it also
takes away "fair use" and throws in a bunch of additional terms and
conditions unrelated to copyright law. Depending on the country,
some of these would not be legally binding on the end-user unless he
explicitly agreed to them.
(whether a mouseclick constitutes "explicit agreement" is a different
matter...)
> You were saying?
Still digging? I wouldn't go any deeper - you're about to hit molten iron.
Mark Kent
The provisions of the GPL are clear - it's publicly available to all.
There is no need to agree to it in order to use the software. If you
think something is in violation of this, please report it to the FSF.
Mark Kent
No, because the GPL cannot be used in this way.
>
> He's been shown it does.
>
> This also shows how easily "advocates" throw around myths as fact. They
> continually don't know what they are talking about. I've shown that in
> this post and most likely will in others as well.
If you think something is in violation of the GPL, then you should refer
it to the FSF. The GPL cannot be used in this way.
Mark Kent
No, you haven't. You've shown an install process. If you can find a
GPL which requires this, then please show us and the FSF.
>
>> You have yet to prove him wrong.
>>
>
> I have.
Nope, see above.
flatfish+++
> wjbell <wjb...@none.net> writes:
>
>> Jamie Hart wrote:
>>
>>> You have yet to prove him wrong.
>>>
>>
>> I have.
>
> Being sandwiched between Jamie & Mark is a frightening place to be.
The very thought of it turns my stomach.
> You
> could tell them that water was wet and they would disagree. Your best
> bet is to be really rude, then Kier will arrive to chastise you and then
> the Gang will question his motives and turn on him ... you
> meanwhile, can slip out the back door whistling satisfied with a job
> well done.
Stop giving away my secrets :)
Jamie Hart
> The guy is certifiable.
>
Hi Hadron, still sicking up to the trolls I see.
William Poaster
"He digs, dig dig dig dig dig dig,
In his Mine the whole day through,
To dig dig dig dig dig dig dig dig,
Its what he likes to do.
It aint no trick,
To get tricks click,
If he digs, dig, dig,
With a shovel or a stick...."
I wonder how deep his hole is now.....
'Course ding-dong posts from SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com, which turns a blind
eye to spam. It is listed at Spamhaus, with 49 SBL listings for IPs under
the responsibility of sbc.com, 21 of which are listed in ROKSO.
As he obviously doesn't care that they support spam, I wouldn't take
anything he says seriously.
Hadron Quark
What trolls?
Just because you question the direction certain aspects of Linux are
taking doesn't make you a troll you know.
I have seen pisstake posts from Flatfish, but never outright trolls or
rudeness the like of which Peter Köhlmann, and more recently Kier, have
taken to a new level. In my view he is one of the sanest Linux advocates
out there. his main agenda is to use & improve Linux : not to simply cry
like a little girl about how Windows is full of malware.
You want trolls? Mark Kent is a troll : when did he last offer a correct
opinion about anything? Willy Boaster? Both do more for Windows than
they for Linux.
--
All rights reserved.
The Ghost In The Machine
<mark...@demon.co.uk>
wrote
on Wed, 18 Oct 2006 17:37:37 +0100
<hr1i04-...@ellandroad.demon.co.uk>:
Paragraph 5 is fairly clear on this. The license need not be accepted
to simply use the software, though it is not legal to modify or
distribute said software in that case.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Conventional memory has to be one of the most UNconventional
architectures I've seen in a computer system.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
wjbell
Again, stop being a moron. The question wasn't whether or not software
venders are allowed to do it, it's whether they /are/ doing it. The
answer is yes.
wjbell
> wjbell <wjb...@none.net> writes:
>
>> Jamie Hart wrote:
>>
>>> You have yet to prove him wrong.
>>>
>>
>> I have.
>
> Being sandwiched between Jamie & Mark is a frightening place to be. You
> could tell them that water was wet and they would disagree. Your best
> bet is to be really rude, then Kier will arrive to chastise you and then
> the Gang will question his motives and turn on him ... you
> meanwhile, can slip out the back door whistling satisfied with a job
> well done.
>
Yeah, I know the advocate routine: they'll argue to death against the
most obvious hoping to either sidetrack the conversation or that you'll
simply get tired of participating in a discussion that consists mostly
of "I know you are but what am I?" type mentality. Then when you drop
out from sheer boredom they later claim they "won"... whatever that
means ...
But I got news for them... they better bring a lunch. Cause I'm back,
Baby! [said in the spirit of Frank Costanza] ;)
Mark Kent
Jamie Hart <use...@jhart.ath.cx> espoused:
I now recall why wjbell was in my kfile...
wjbell
Jim Richardson didn't ask for a GPL that requires this, he asked for
software that required you to agree to the GPL before installation.
It's there in black and white. I'm sorry if you're too daft to see it.
Now run along, Jr. Your antics are getting tiresome. Maybe it's time
for you to be changed... where's Roy anyway....
wjbell
Well it /is/ being used this way, Einstein. *Shock Horror* Maybe you
should run along and tug on RMS's shirt tale and taddle on the big bad
software guys instead of making your self look like a complete imbecile
in here.
>
>>
>> He's been shown it does.
>>
>> This also shows how easily "advocates" throw around myths as fact. They
>> continually don't know what they are talking about. I've shown that in
>> this post and most likely will in others as well.
>
>
> If you think something is in violation of the GPL, then you should refer
> it to the FSF. The GPL cannot be used in this way.
I'll get right on it, boss! *cackle*
flatfish+++
>
> I now recall why wjbell was in my kfile...
So does everyone else.
It's because he tears you apart with good arguments backed up with facts........
flatfish+++
>
> Yeah, I know the advocate routine: they'll argue to death against the
> most obvious hoping to either sidetrack the conversation or that you'll
> simply get tired of participating in a discussion that consists mostly
> of "I know you are but what am I?" type mentality. Then when you drop
> out from sheer boredom they later claim they "won"... whatever that
> means ...
Winning, like *supported* has a totally different meaning in
comp.os.linux.advocacy than it does in the real world.
> But I got news for them... they better bring a lunch. Cause I'm back,
> Baby! [said in the spirit of Frank Costanza] ;)
Welcome back!
wjbell
> On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 14:07:47 +0000, wjbell wrote:
>
>> "If you agree with the terms, click the checkbox next to "I Accept the
>> GPL License" and the click the "Next" button. You will not be able to
>> proceed unless you agree to the license terms."
>
> With 18,000+ projects out there we're bound to have a few authors who
> don't understand that they don't have to require users to read and agree
> to the GPL before installing. Just because they say you have to, doesn't
> mean the GPL requires it.
I'm not saying whether the GPL requires it or not. I'm simply
responding to Jim Richardson's request to show him software that
requires you to agree to the GPL before installation.
I did that.
Note: Jim has been suspiciously quiet after I replied with proof.
Indicating he concedes.
Also note: With the absence of Jim, now the whole band of idiots (no
offense) have slithered in to try and do damage control.
Interesting turn of events.
>
> The whole brilliant thing abut the GPL is that it doesn't take *anything*
> away.
Whoh! It doesn't take anything away?! How about the right to ownership
of your own software? Ever heard of a forked code?
> It only grants rights.
It grants rights, alright. It grants everyone the right to do with your
code as they wish.
> The copyright laws don't require you to
> agree to them, any more than they require you to agree to the copyright in
> a book. They only say that the big bad copyright owner can come after you
> if you exceed the rights that have been granted.
>
> OTOH, Microsoft's EULA isn't just about what you *can* do, it also
> takes away "fair use" and throws in a bunch of additional terms and
> conditions unrelated to copyright law. Depending on the country,
> some of these would not be legally binding on the end-user unless he
> explicitly agreed to them.
>
> (whether a mouseclick constitutes "explicit agreement" is a different
> matter...)
>
>> You were saying?
>
> Still digging? I wouldn't go any deeper - you're about to hit molten iron.
*yawn*
Mark Kent
Software cannot require this; if you think something is in violation,
then please show us and the FSF.
--
Mark Kent
No, it isn't, because it can't be. If you think that something is in
violation of the GPL, then please inform us and the FSF.
>
>>
>>>
>>> He's been shown it does.
>>>
>>> This also shows how easily "advocates" throw around myths as fact. They
>>> continually don't know what they are talking about. I've shown that in
>>> this post and most likely will in others as well.
>>
>>
>> If you think something is in violation of the GPL, then you should refer
>> it to the FSF. The GPL cannot be used in this way.
>
> I'll get right on it
Please do - we're waiting.
wjbell
By all means, add me again... maybe then I won't have to hear your
childish sniveling.
wjbell
It does require this and I've shown it.
flatfish+++
Mark Kent is one of our more boring Linux advocates.
He doesn't really say much except for insults and lies.
You will usually see him following a Roi Boi post with a *me too* post.
wjbell
Sounds about right. So far that's all he's posted.
The funny thing is, hardly any Linux advocacy goes on in this group it
all. It's all MS bashing and tinfoil hat stuff. I guess this is where
all the Linux loons end up. Question is, why isn't RMS himself in here?
For old times sake
http://www.abiword.org/~abi/expo99/expo_02_010_full.jpg
Dude needs a serious lesson in personal hygiene.
Hadron Quark
> Sounds about right. So far that's all he's posted.
>
> The funny thing is, hardly any Linux advocacy goes on in this group it
> all. It's all MS bashing and tinfoil hat stuff. I guess this is
> where all the Linux loons end up. Question is, why isn't RMS himself
> in here?
>
> For old times sake
> http://www.abiword.org/~abi/expo99/expo_02_010_full.jpg
>
> Dude needs a serious lesson in personal hygiene.
What's that in his mouth? Is that Roy on his right?
--
We are MicroSoft. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.
(Attributed to B.G., Gill Bates)
flatfish+++
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 02:09:43 +0200, Hadron Quark wrote:
>
>> wjbell <wjb...@none.net> writes:
>>
>>> Sounds about right. So far that's all he's posted.
>>>
>>> The funny thing is, hardly any Linux advocacy goes on in this group it
>>> all. It's all MS bashing and tinfoil hat stuff. I guess this is
>>> where all the Linux loons end up. Question is, why isn't RMS himself
>>> in here?
>>>
>>> For old times sake
>>> http://www.abiword.org/~abi/expo99/expo_02_010_full.jpg
>>>
>>> Dude needs a serious lesson in personal hygiene.
>>
>>
>> What's that in his mouth? Is that Roy on his right?
>
> 1. His *teeth*
>
> 2. Roy is out of the bottom of the frame.
> He's down there though, on his knees as usual.
Notice they all have their hands in their pockets.
I guess meeting their hero has had a profound effect on them.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
- From the GPL V2.
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 Pro‐ gram). Whether
that is true depends on what the Program does.
and
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are
prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. There‐ fore, by
modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all
its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the
Program or works based on it.
Like I said, no requirement to do squat diddly just to install and use,
a GPL program.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFNty1d90bcYOAWPYRAjQRAKDaN14bRg6ZCemY2U17FKOnx+qc7wCfTEa1
okvTSRuTgF725pMTYaSGZTs=
=hEiU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
"It says he made us all to be just like him. So if we're dumb, then
god is dumb, and maybe even a little ugly on the side."
-- Frank Zappa
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 14:01:29 GMT,
wjbell <wjb...@none.net> wrote:
> Mark Kent wrote:
>> begin oe_protect.scr
>> wjbell <wjb...@none.net> espoused:
>>> arachnid wrote:
>>>>> Now will you admit that you were wrong like an adult or continue to spew
>>>>> asinine fables about how if you close your eyes while clicking "I
>>>>> Accept" it doesn't count?
>>>>
>>>> So, how deep do you plan to make this hole?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I apologize, did I sign into alt.class.smallbus by mistake?
>>
>> You do not need to agree to anything, you /do/ have to abide by the
>> GPL's terms if you wish to onward-distribute code. You are not allowed
>> to /not/ agree with the GPL's terms with respect to onward distribution,
>> but for using something, there's nothing to agree to at all.
>>
>
> The question was:
>
> "Please show me a GPL licence that requires you to agree to it, in order
> to install and use the software."
>
> I provided three examples of just that in a quick 10 min search. I'm
> sure there's many more.
none of the examples you provided showed any requirement of the GPL to
agree to it before you installed a GPL covered program.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFNt0xd90bcYOAWPYRAjTlAJ9GNfIDTLhz29FZ/aIAtB3VIGrBugCguAKN
GKYpUbJjM9BJRh75WEUyXQE=
=WvEj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
If you make yourselves sheep, the wolves will eat you
--Benjamin Franklin
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 14:07:47 GMT,
wjbell <wjb...@none.net> wrote:
> Jim Richardson wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 03:46:56 GMT,
>> You seem to have a funny idea of what "require" means. You can legally
>> install and use all the apps/packages you've given as examples, with no
>> problem, without ever having to agree to, or even read, the GPL.
>
> "If you agree with the terms, click the checkbox next to "I Accept the
> GPL License" and the click the "Next" button. You will not be able to
> proceed unless you agree to the license terms."
>
> You were saying?
>
- From the GPL v2
<quote>
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have
not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are
prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. There‐ fore, by
modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all
its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the
Program or works based on it.
</quote>
>>
>> Now using the source code in another project? or distributing the
>> binaries, that's a different matter, and is not what we are discussing.
>
> Exactly. So why are you bringing it up?
>
makign sure you can't wiggle out that way.
>>
>> There is no *requirement* for you to accept the GPL merely to install
>> and use the software.
>
> "If you agree with the terms, click the checkbox next to "I Accept the
> GPL License" and the click the "Next" button.
> You will not be able to proceed unless you agree to the license terms."
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
<quote>
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have
not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are
prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. There‐ fore, by
modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all
its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the
Program or works based on it.
</quote>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFNt2nd90bcYOAWPYRAnhWAJwPEzDm2eZFzrX7zdR+Hi0GN1HmoACfeJ93
czgNhvMctc8Y/5m1O7vdcY4=
=2XGC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Dash Dash Space
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 22:24:18 GMT,
wjbell <wjb...@none.net> wrote:
> arachnid wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 14:07:47 +0000, wjbell wrote:
>>
>>> "If you agree with the terms, click the checkbox next to "I Accept the
>>> GPL License" and the click the "Next" button. You will not be able to
>>> proceed unless you agree to the license terms."
>>
>> With 18,000+ projects out there we're bound to have a few authors who
>> don't understand that they don't have to require users to read and agree
>> to the GPL before installing. Just because they say you have to, doesn't
>> mean the GPL requires it.
>
> I'm not saying whether the GPL requires it or not. I'm simply
> responding to Jim Richardson's request to show him software that
> requires you to agree to the GPL before installation.
>
> I did that.
>
> Note: Jim has been suspiciously quiet after I replied with proof.
> Indicating he concedes.
>
Bullshit.
> Also note: With the absence of Jim, now the whole band of idiots (no
> offense) have slithered in to try and do damage control.
>
> Interesting turn of events.
>
pay attention wjbell, and do try and keep up.
<quote>
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have
not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are
prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. There‐ fore, by
modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all
its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the
Program or works based on it.
</quote>
>>
>> The whole brilliant thing abut the GPL is that it doesn't take *anything*
>> away.
>
> Whoh! It doesn't take anything away?! How about the right to ownership
> of your own software? Ever heard of a forked code?
>
>> It only grants rights.
>
> It grants rights, alright. It grants everyone the right to do with your
> code as they wish.
>
>> The copyright laws don't require you to
>> agree to them, any more than they require you to agree to the copyright in
>> a book. They only say that the big bad copyright owner can come after you
>> if you exceed the rights that have been granted.
>>
>> OTOH, Microsoft's EULA isn't just about what you *can* do, it also
>> takes away "fair use" and throws in a bunch of additional terms and
>> conditions unrelated to copyright law. Depending on the country,
>> some of these would not be legally binding on the end-user unless he
>> explicitly agreed to them.
>>
>> (whether a mouseclick constitutes "explicit agreement" is a different
>> matter...)
>>
>>> You were saying?
>>
>> Still digging? I wouldn't go any deeper - you're about to hit molten iron.
>
> *yawn*
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFNt6vd90bcYOAWPYRAqz/AKCWWZXRe6sPAMgZ5tE22d+Wf5XPGgCfd76k
KEYUA+iX5Efei/m30K50H7k=
=VJed
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Go the extra mile. It makes your boss look like an
incompetent slacker.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 15:41:43 GMT,
wjbell <wjb...@none.net> wrote:
> Jamie Hart wrote:
>> wjbell wrote:
>>
>>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>>> begin oe_protect.scr
>>>> wjbell <wjb...@none.net> espoused:
>>>>> Jim Richardson wrote:
>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 03:46:56 GMT,
>>>>>> wjbell <wjb...@none.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> Jim Richardson wrote:
>>>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> "If you agree with the terms, click the checkbox next to "I Accept the
>>>>> GPL License" and the click the "Next" button. You will not be able to
>>>>> proceed unless you agree to the license terms."
>>>>>
>>>>> You were saying?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now using the source code in another project? or distributing the
>>>>>> binaries, that's a different matter, and is not what we are discussing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Exactly. So why are you bringing it up?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no *requirement* for you to accept the GPL merely to install
>>>>>> and use the software.
>>>>>
>>>>> "If you agree with the terms, click the checkbox next to "I Accept the
>>>>> GPL License" and the click the "Next" button.
>>>>> You will not be able to proceed unless you agree to the license terms."
>>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>
>>>> Then you should report that back to the FSF, as the GPL is not able to
>>>> be used in this way. There is no requirement for you to accept the GPL
>>>> to install and use GPLed software.
>>>>
>>>
>>> All /I/ need to do is show Jim Richardson software that requires you to
>>> agree to the GPL before you are allowed to install it.
>>>
>>> He said it doesn't exist.
>>>
>> No he didn't, he said a GPL license that states that you have to read and
>> agree to it doesn't exist.
>
> He said nothing about a license you need to *read* and agree to. Get
> your facts straight. (although, I'm sure the install license screen
> assumes you will read the GPL before you agree to it)
>
> And I quote:
>
> "Please show me a GPL licence that requires you to agree to it, in order
> to install and use the software. "
>
> I have shown exactly that.
>
No you haven't. You've claimed that some installers claim you have to
agree to the GPL in order to install the app, but you've shown no CPL
licence requirement for you to agree to the GPL in order to install a
GPL'd app.
>> You have yet to prove him wrong.
>>
>
> I have.
nope.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFNt4Md90bcYOAWPYRAh9gAKCF6F2NPUpge2yczkOa4Sge9UhpAQCeJLK3
LyqcEH/96kdilOLeXXkqaso=
=5c3d
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
"If guns cause crime, mine must be defective." -Ted Nugent
wjbell
This is all getting so tiresome.
It's hard to reason with a brick wall.
http://web.archive.org/web/20010611185901/www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame78.html
wjbell
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 22:24:18 GMT,
> wjbell <wjb...@none.net> wrote:
>> arachnid wrote:
>>> On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 14:07:47 +0000, wjbell wrote:
>>>
>>>> "If you agree with the terms, click the checkbox next to "I Accept the
>>>> GPL License" and the click the "Next" button. You will not be able to
>>>> proceed unless you agree to the license terms."
>>>
>>> With 18,000+ projects out there we're bound to have a few authors who
>>> don't understand that they don't have to require users to read and agree
>>> to the GPL before installing. Just because they say you have to, doesn't
>>> mean the GPL requires it.
>>
>> I'm not saying whether the GPL requires it or not. I'm simply
>> responding to Jim Richardson's request to show him software that
>> requires you to agree to the GPL before installation.
>>
>> I did that.
>>
>> Note: Jim has been suspiciously quiet after I replied with proof.
>> Indicating he concedes.
>>
>
> Bullshit.
http://web.archive.org/web/20010611185901/www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame78.html
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 03:33:32 GMT,
As I said, you've shown no example of a GPL licence requiring you to
agree to it before you can install or use the app it covers.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFNxRUd90bcYOAWPYRAvSwAKCzk1MOSKzDjyPC2lkzlQ+ZqfFEEACdGKaD
g8XNmoTqnc/6RzU0k6MB7t0=
=n2pl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Quantum mechanics: The dreams stuff are made of.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
And rather than address the point, you resort to lame flames, while
snippling the very data you claim doesn't exist. Here, I'll repost it
for you.
- From the GPL v2
<quote>
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have
not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are
prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. There‐ fore, by
modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all
its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the
Program or works based on it.
</quote>
hope that helps you improve your understanding of the subject wjbell.
At least, maybe it will help you improve your debating technique.
Addressing the points brought up, rather than snipping them, and
whining, would be a good start.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFNxTkd90bcYOAWPYRAoOYAKC+d3wsHC1rb0PmnImkoXbSxKhFLQCgysTb
Aj0H1ytQXrpGLfdGgu4L0bY=
=3HCr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Government is strange. If you could print all the money you wanted, and
steal all the money you wanted, couldn't you manage to stay out of debt?
Mark Kent
then please show us and the FSF. This is /not/ a provision possible
from the GPL. You need to read the GPL and try hard to understand it.
> and I've shown it.
You've shown that maybe someone has misunderstood the GPL.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Department chairmen never die, they just lose their faculties.
Mark Kent
Consider it done.
> maybe then I won't have to hear your
> childish sniveling.
The killfile works the other way around - I put you in mine because
you're wasting my time. If you don't want to read what I'm writing, you
have to put me in /your/ kfile. Doh.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Tim Smith
Mark Kent <mark...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >>> He said it doesn't exist.
> >>>
> >>> It does.
> >>
> >> No, because the GPL cannot be used in this way.
> >
> > Well it /is/ being used this way
>
> No, it isn't, because it can't be. If you think that something is in
> violation of the GPL, then please inform us and the FSF.
From the GPL FAQ at gnu.org:
Can software installers ask people to click to agree to the GPL? If
I get some software under the GPL, do I have to agree to anything?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Some software packaging systems have a place which requires you to
click through or otherwise indicate assent to the terms of the GPL.
This is neither required nor forbidden. With or without a click
through, the GPL's rules remain the same.
Merely agreeing to the GPL doesn't place any obligations on you. You
are not required to agree to anything to merely use software which
is licensed under the GPL. You only have obligations if you modify
or distribute the software. If it really bothers you to click
through the GPL, nothing stops you from hacking the software to
bypass this.
Maybe Mark should write to FSF and let them know they can remove this
item from the FAQ, as this situation never happens.
--
--Tim Smith
Jamie Hart
> arachnid wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 14:07:47 +0000, wjbell wrote:
>>
>>> "If you agree with the terms, click the checkbox next to "I Accept the
>>> GPL License" and the click the "Next" button. You will not be able to
>>> proceed unless you agree to the license terms."
>>
>> With 18,000+ projects out there we're bound to have a few authors who
>> don't understand that they don't have to require users to read and agree
>> to the GPL before installing. Just because they say you have to, doesn't
>> mean the GPL requires it.
>
> I'm not saying whether the GPL requires it or not. I'm simply
> responding to Jim Richardson's request to show him software that
> requires you to agree to the GPL before installation.
>
asked for a GPL license that required you to agree to it before
installing the software it covers.
<quote>
"Please show me a GPL licence that requires you to agree to it, in order
to install and use the software."
</quote>
See where he asks for a _GPL_licence_?
Constantly showing something that he didn't ask for is not getting you
anywhere.
> I did that.
>
Nope, not yet. Even though it's been pointed out to you that you haven't.
> Note: Jim has been suspiciously quiet after I replied with proof.
> Indicating he concedes.
>
He's probably laughing too hard to type.
> Also note: With the absence of Jim, now the whole band of idiots (no
> offense) have slithered in to try and do damage control.
>
Nope, but lot's of people have joined the thread to point out your
mistake. Seems either your too stupid to understand what Jim asked for,
or just won't admit you were wrong.
> Interesting turn of events.
>
Sure is. Wintroll makes a fool of themselves and then lies their head
off to try to salvage some dignity.
Pity it didn't work for you.
>>
>> The whole brilliant thing abut the GPL is that it doesn't take *anything*
>> away.
>
> Whoh! It doesn't take anything away?! How about the right to ownership
> of your own software? Ever heard of a forked code?
>
How does it take away your ownership of _your_ code?
>> It only grants rights.
>
> It grants rights, alright. It grants everyone the right to do with your
> code as they wish.
>
Yes, but doesn't deprive you of own your code. You can still do what you
like with it.
>> The copyright laws don't require you to
>> agree to them, any more than they require you to agree to the
>> copyright in
>> a book. They only say that the big bad copyright owner can come after you
>> if you exceed the rights that have been granted.
>>
>> OTOH, Microsoft's EULA isn't just about what you *can* do, it also
>> takes away "fair use" and throws in a bunch of additional terms and
>> conditions unrelated to copyright law. Depending on the country,
>> some of these would not be legally binding on the end-user unless he
>> explicitly agreed to them.
>> (whether a mouseclick constitutes "explicit agreement" is a different
>> matter...)
>>
>>> You were saying?
>>
>> Still digging? I wouldn't go any deeper - you're about to hit molten
>> iron.
>
> *yawn*
All that lying made you tired?
William Poaster
> begin oe_protect.scr
> William Poaster <w...@mykubuntu6061.eu> espoused:
>> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 01:23:21 -0700, Jim Richardson wrote:
>>
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 06:38:49 GMT,
>>> wjbell <wjb...@none.net> wrote:
>>>> Jim Richardson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Try again Erik, this time, try harder. Please show me a GPL licence
>>>>> that requires you to agree to it, in order to install and use the
>>>>> software.
>>>>
>>>> "PLEASE READ THIS LICENSE CAREFULLY BEFORE INSTALLING OR USING THE
>>>> GET_FILE TECHNIQUE SOFTWARE. BY DOWNLOADING, INSTALLING, AND/OR USING
>>>> THE SOFTWARE, YOU ARE AGREEING TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS
>>>> LICENSE. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE, YOU ARE NOT
>>>> AUTHORIZED TO DOWNLOAD, INSTALL, AND/OR USE THIS SOFTWARE."
>>>>
>>>> http://www.fmpsolutions.com/On-Line%20Docs/Get_File%20Docs/docs/legal.htm
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Qt
>>>>
>>>> To avoid some compilation errors, you will want to have Qt installed
>>>> before you compile KDE4. This will get the KDE-customized version from
>>>> the repository for you. Make sure you read and agree to the QPL and
>>>> GPL before you use the -confirm-license flag. Procede as follows: "
>>>>
>>>> http://developer.kde.org/build/trunk.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Download the latest 4.X firmware( usually in the "latest release"
>>>> section of the downloads page.) You will have to agree to both the GPL
>>>> and the Intel Software License Agreement. The Unslung firmware uses
>>>> GPL'ed code and it also uses Intel(R) IXP400 Software."
>>>>
>>>> http://wiki.arslinux.com/Unslung_on_the_NSLU2
>>>>
>>>> ... to name a few from a quick search.
>>>
>>> Thats nice. Too bad you have such difficulty reading.
>>>
>>> there is no requirement to accept the GPL in order to use the code. The
>>> GPL is only relevent if you try to distribute it, or the binaries,
>>> modified, or as stock. Use of the software is not relevent to the GPL.
>>> (although the GPL3 might change that)
>>
>> You do begin to wonder if the boy's got something missing, or whether
>> he's used M$ products for *so* long that he's got the M$ Prisoner
>> Mentality. I wonder how he goes on opening a can of beans, looking for a
>> licence before opening it.
>>
>> I have *never* HAD to accept any GPL, before installing any software
>> made under it's licence....in fact sometimes I don't read it till
>> *after* I've installed the app. <grin>
>>
>>
> It's another angle in the geometry of fud. In this case, it's an attempt
> to make the casual reader feel that the MS Eula is essentially the same
> thing as the GPL. Whilst this is true at a very basic level
> (copyright-law based licence), beyond that, it's quite different. As has
> been repeatedly said, using GPLed products does not require agreement to
> the GPL. The GPL isn't really something which you can agree to per se, in
> that you can't disagree with it either.
Quite right, Mark.
The GPL Version 2 states:
"5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are
prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by
modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and
all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying
the Program or works based on it."
> It's the licence, and it is what it is. You don't agree to it, you
> merely abide by its terms.
Well IMHO you are merely *asked* to abide by it terms, which means that
the trust is put in the user to abide by the terms laid down.
> The MS Eula is a quite different animal (actually, there are hundreds of
> them, afairc), all of which seek to reduce your rights down to more or
> less zero, and ensure that Microsoft have zero liability for anything
> which might happen, you can't blame them for anything, and you haven't
> even got a right to the code working.
> I think you also agree to let them do anything with the code even after
> it's been installed now, and you also agree to a very draconian set of
> rules regarding what you can say about it, too.
And M$ can change those EULAs at anytime, *without* any warning. At least
the GPL is discussed openly.
--
Trolls & replies to trolls
are filtered out, as are
googlegroup users.
Hadron Quark
Quite wrong. You have to agree with the GPL to install certain
stuff. This is an indisputable fact.
The fact that you have not been put through the grinder doesn't mean
others haven't - put it down to laziness on the application developers
side.
Mark Kent
That's the bit! You do not have to accept it. There's also another bit
which says you can use a binary in any event.
>
>> It's the licence, and it is what it is. You don't agree to it, you
>> merely abide by its terms.
>
> Well IMHO you are merely *asked* to abide by it terms, which means that
> the trust is put in the user to abide by the terms laid down.
Fair point - I think the basic deal is that if you do /not/ abide by its
terms, then you risk the FSF coming after you. It's happened many
times, and in each case, the infringing party has changed what they were
doing.
>
>> The MS Eula is a quite different animal (actually, there are hundreds of
>> them, afairc), all of which seek to reduce your rights down to more or
>> less zero, and ensure that Microsoft have zero liability for anything
>> which might happen, you can't blame them for anything, and you haven't
>> even got a right to the code working.
>> I think you also agree to let them do anything with the code even after
>> it's been installed now, and you also agree to a very draconian set of
>> rules regarding what you can say about it, too.
>
> And M$ can change those EULAs at anytime, *without* any warning. At least
> the GPL is discussed openly.
>
Yeah - I'd forgotten about that bit!
William Poaster
Perhaps you're referring to this?
"However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not
include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
itself accompanies the executable."
The FSF has a "How to use the GPL or LGPL" on it's website, which is
interesting:-
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-howto.html
<snip>
wjbell
But Jim, that's NOT what you said. You changed the wording mid stream
to save face. Here's what you said in response to Erik:
Erik F:
"Yet many GPL products have "click-thru" shinkwrap GPL licenses, that
you must agree to, to simply install and USE the software."
Jim R:
"examples?"
Jim R:
"You are in error, there is no requirement to agree to any GPL
"clickthrouhg" which is what you claimed."
Erik said there were many GPL _PRODUCTS_ that have GPL licenses
displayed that you must click through (I agree button) to use the
software. This is true and what I've shown you.
You immediately changed the wording to try to make him look bad. You
changed it to "there is no requirement" which is key here because then
you can strech it a little farther off topic and say "the GPL has no
requirement for you to do this". But nobody was talking about the
requirements of the GPL. The original statement was that some GPL
products contain a license screen that requires you to agree to the GPL
license presented to you before you can continue with the installation.
See how that works? You altered the wording ever so slightly so that
you can say he was wrong and make the GPL look good at the same time.
So again, he didn't ask for any "requirement of the GPL", he merely
stated that they existed in software. Which has been proven:
http://docs.codehaus.org/download/attachments/12837/GeoServerInstall2.gif
Hope that clears it up for you.
William Poaster
> begin oe_protect.scr
> William Poaster <w...@mykubuntu6061.eu> espoused:
<snip>
>> And M$ can change those EULAs at anytime, *without* any warning. At
>> least the GPL is discussed openly.
>>
>>
> Yeah - I'd forgotten about that bit!
Just as a follow up to this:
"BOSTON, September 26, 2006--The Free Software Foundation (FSF) today
released the first discussion draft for version 2 of the GNU Free
Documentation License (GFDL).
This release marks the beginning of a public discussion and review
process, with the goal being the production of the best free documentation
licenses possible. The FSF has invited everyone to read the new drafts and
contribute comments at http://gplv3.fsf.org/doclic-dd1-guide.html."
You'll note the "public discussion" bit, as opposed to M$'s EULAs
where it's a "fait-accompli".
flatfish+++
>
> This is all getting so tiresome.
>
> It's hard to reason with a brick wall.
>
> http://web.archive.org/web/20010611185901/www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame78.html
Wait till you meet kelsey!
flatfish+++
What an ass you are Mark Kent.
And you are wrong again as usual.
Now go run and hide like you always do when you get spanked.
****************************************************************
From the GPL FAQ at gnu.org:
Can software installers ask people to click to agree to the GPL? If
I get some software under the GPL, do I have to agree to anything?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Some software packaging systems have a place which requires you to
click through or otherwise indicate assent to the terms of the GPL.
This is neither required nor forbidden. With or without a click
through, the GPL's rules remain the same.
Merely agreeing to the GPL doesn't place any obligations on you. You
are not required to agree to anything to merely use software which
is licensed under the GPL. You only have obligations if you modify
or distribute the software. If it really bothers you to click
through the GPL, nothing stops you from hacking the software to
bypass this.
*****************************************************************
Mark Kent
William Poaster <w...@mykubuntu6061.eu> espoused:
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 15:15:18 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:
>
>> begin oe_protect.scr
>> William Poaster <w...@mykubuntu6061.eu> espoused:
>
><snip>
>>> And M$ can change those EULAs at anytime, *without* any warning. At
>>> least the GPL is discussed openly.
>>>
>>>
>> Yeah - I'd forgotten about that bit!
>
> Just as a follow up to this:
> "BOSTON, September 26, 2006--The Free Software Foundation (FSF) today
> released the first discussion draft for version 2 of the GNU Free
> Documentation License (GFDL).
> This release marks the beginning of a public discussion and review
> process, with the goal being the production of the best free documentation
> licenses possible. The FSF has invited everyone to read the new drafts and
> contribute comments at http://gplv3.fsf.org/doclic-dd1-guide.html."
>
> You'll note the "public discussion" bit, as opposed to M$'s EULAs
> where it's a "fait-accompli".
>
Indeed. This is all about information being free. Commercial models
which rely on making information proprietary or scarce are not going to
survive the construction of our global-net.
Timo Pirinen
> Jim Richardson wrote:
>
>> requires you to agree to it, in order to install and use the software.
> http://www.fmpsolutions.com/On-Line%20Docs/Get_File%20Docs/docs/legal.htm
From the page:"Revision 1: July 20, 1999"
--
Timo Pirinen
piri...@dlc.fi
Jamie Hart
> On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 22:55:29 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:
>
>>
>> I now recall why wjbell was in my kfile...
>
> So does everyone else.
>
> It's because he tears you apart with good arguments backed up with
> facts........
Damn, I wish he'd start doing that again.
His current strategy of deliberately misunderstanding what is asked for is
not getting him anywhere.
Jamie Hart
How do you get from the GPL FAQ saying that the details of the GPL licence
are the same regardless of whether a software package requires you to
accept it before installation, to "There is a GPL licence that requires you
to accept it before installation"?
The latter is what was asked for, neither Mr Bell, nor yourself has been
able to supply a GPL licence that requires you to accept it before
installing the software it covers.
When you do, let us know.
Jamie Hart
> Hadron Quark wrote:
>> wjbell <wjb...@none.net> writes:
>>
>>> Jamie Hart wrote:
>>>
>>>> You have yet to prove him wrong.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I have.
>>
>> Being sandwiched between Jamie & Mark is a frightening place to be. You
>> could tell them that water was wet and they would disagree. Your best
>> bet is to be really rude, then Kier will arrive to chastise you and then
>> the Gang will question his motives and turn on him ... you
>> meanwhile, can slip out the back door whistling satisfied with a job
>> well done.
>>
>
> Yeah, I know the advocate routine: they'll argue to death against the
> most obvious hoping to either sidetrack the conversation or that you'll
> simply get tired of participating in a discussion that consists mostly
> of "I know you are but what am I?" type mentality. Then when you drop
> out from sheer boredom they later claim they "won"... whatever that
> means ...
>
> But I got news for them... they better bring a lunch. Cause I'm back,
> Baby! [said in the spirit of Frank Costanza] ;)
Woohoo! back and dumber than ever.
How the hell can you quote someone at least twice and still have no idea
what they said?
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 15:18:09 +0000, wjbell wrote:
>>> Any questions?
>>
>> Yes - where is this magical GPL licence you refer to which has this
>> requirement?
>>
>>
> Right here:
>
> http://docs.codehaus.org/download/attachments/12837/GeoServerInstall2.gif
>
> I guess you missed it. It's the part that says:
>
> "GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
> Version 2, June 1991"
>
> Need any other clues, Columbo?
" 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"
According to the GPL license, it *explicitly* says that it does *not*
restrict running the program; you are arguing that one has to accept a
license in order to use a program when that very same license *explicitly*
says otherwise.
There is not and never can be a case where you are required to accept this
license in order to use a GPL application, by definition. There can be,
in some cases, developers who incorrectly make you click "accept" on a
dialog box... but that has *nothing* to do with the GPL; said developers
apparently haven't read it or they'd know better.
Don't confuse incorrect installer design with any requirement to accept
any particular license; they are not the same thing.
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 14:07:47 +0000, wjbell wrote:
>> You seem to have a funny idea of what "require" means. You can legally
>> install and use all the apps/packages you've given as examples, with no
>> problem, without ever having to agree to, or even read, the GPL.
>
> "If you agree with the terms, click the checkbox next to "I Accept the GPL
> License" and the click the "Next" button. You will not be able to proceed
> unless you agree to the license terms."
>
> You were saying?
He was saying that an incorrectly written installer is not the same as a
requirement to accept a license which, by definition, *cannot* be accepted
for the stated purpose.
Larry Qualig
The whole argument of accepting the GPL and whether or not people need
to accept the license isn't the issue here. The issue IS the
'incorrectly written installer.' This whole thread began with Erik's
post of:
Eric: "Yet many GPL products have "click-thru" shinkwrap GPL licenses,
that you must agree to, to simply install and USE the software."
It is the installer that he's talking about. Not whether or not this is
correct or how it fits in with the GPL's requirements. Erik's point is
that the installer for many GPL products forces you to do this... not
whether it's correct or not.
arachnid
> It is the installer that he's talking about. Not whether or not this is
> correct or how it fits in with the GPL's requirements. Erik's point is
> that the installer for many GPL products forces you to do this... not
> whether it's correct or not.
I spent several months exploring various distributions My current Ubuntu
system has several thousand post-install applications (not that I use
them all, but I do love to play). And in all of this I have yet to be
forced or even expected to click an "I Agree" button on any open-source
distro or application. There are probably some OSS apps out there that
require it, but I would characterize the quantity as "a very few", not
"many".