Windows installer asks user to accept the GPL

[Ben Finney]

Martin Pool <mbp at canonical.com> writes:

> On 11 Oct 2006, Ben Finney <bignose+hates-spam at benfinney.id.au> wrote:
> > If it's possible to tell the user that they're receiving it under
> > the GPL, without holding up the install while they acknowledge
> > they've been told, that would be best.
> > 
> > Failing that, there's nothing in the GPL that *requires* the user be
> > specifically informed of the license at the time installation (though
> > the resulting installation should *include* an obvious copy of the
> > license for the user to read if they choose).
>
> Yes, but there's nothing in the GPL which says the user *cannot* be
> asked questions or told about the GPL at installation time.  I also
> can't see how this is imposing any additional conditions on the user.

Sorry, my argument has moved on from "additional conditions" (which
would be lifted by not requiring an "accept" action), to "needless
delays and prompts". I should have made that more clear.

> It seems to be common practice for Windows installers to tell users
> about the licence, so we might as well follow that practice.
> Presumably (I haven't run it) we are already asking "do you really
> want to install", "where do you want it", etc.

I'm proposing that we avoid throwing pointless "Here's a bunch of
information, which doesn't in any way affect the installation, press
this button to continue" speed-humps at the user where possible. Doing
so isn't a license violation, but it *is* a pain in the posterior for
the user.

Since we're talking about removing a misleading "agree to this
license" anyway, I thought now would be a good time to reduce the
user's inconvenience in that area further if possible.

-- 
 \       "If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting |
  `\   them down? We might, if they screamed all the time, for no good |
_o__)                                         reason."  -- Jack Handey |
Ben Finney