GPL not a EULA?

[Robert Collins]

On Wed, 2006-10-11 at 19:00 +1000, Martin Pool wrote:
> On 11 Oct 2006, Alexander Belchenko <bialix at ukr.net> wrote:
> 
> > Before turningv on License page in the installer I ask Martin Pool for
> > this and he was positive. I think I saw at least one open source program
> > that have analogical license page in their installers -- it's OpenOffice
> > (IIRC).
> 
> That's true.  I think Lachlan's point is just about whether it's
> appropriate to ask people to "accept" the licence, or perhaps just to
> "acknowledge" it or display the message.
> 
> I think we should show it; it's what people expect in these installers.
> I'm open to suggestions on how the button should be labelled.

I think its appropriate for bzr to show this because:
 - theres only two licences that apply (the GPL and the python licence)
[this is for the all-in-one installer)
 - We ship the source, where the licence does apply, and folk should
know that they have the rights we are offering, and that we are
disclaiming responsibility etc.

Cygwin doesn't, but it, like Ubuntu, is shipping binaries by default,
where the right to modify source is a second order thing,... and has
dozens of licences covering its works, so its much less understandable
too.

-Rob
-- 
GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20061011/fd2e787f/attachment.pgp