Windows installer asks user to accept the GPL

[Lachlan Patrick]

Ben Finney wrote:
> 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.

I agree there's probably no _legal_ difference between requiring the
user to accept it, just notifying the user, or just packaging the GPL in
the same directory as the source code.

My question was really motivated by the desire to clear any roadblocks
that corporate citizens might perceive. I know from experience that open
source code can be difficult to get accepted into some corporate
environments, even if it's just a tool for helping you write code. Some
companies seem to be 'allergic' to open source. Mostly I think this is
because they just don't understand the GPL and are afraid of legal
consequences. So my point about requiring the user to actively accept
the GPL, even though it won't apply to their own code or their
day-to-day usage of bzr, is that this might hinder corporate uptake. And
I believe it's way past time for CVS to retire, so I don't want such
roadblocks in bzr's installer.

>> 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.

While I agree with the general sentiment of Ben's reply here about
reducing inconvenience, I think people now expect the installer to ask a
few questions and show a licence, so I think showing the GPL with a Next
button below it is fine. All I'd ask for is a little clarification on
that screen that the GPL applies to the bzr source code which comes with
the tool, but not to the user's code or documents. This would make it
crystal clear to corporate legal types.

Loki