On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 17:17:06 -0700 Archaic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 05:29:38PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > > > > I'd like to get other opinions. > > I am in adamant agreement with Randy on this. I have devised a method > by which I script the install, but intentionally doing so doesn't > allow me to claim ignorance of what I have done and therefore the > continued use of the software still means I agreed with the license. > > However, as a book, we should not make any attempts to circumvent the > license, or the reading/accepting of the license, for scriptability. > We aren't writing scripts, but rather a book of instructions. > Scripting is an exercise that should be left to the reader. > Archaic and Randy are right on this IMO. You may be open to a law suit if you 'script' to defeat the licence acceptance and someone pleads that they didn't realise the license terms for that reason. I'm not at all sure of passing 'yes' in a script either, now it's been brought up. It's not likely that the licencors will sue you, but someone they litigate against for a gross breach may cross-sue you to mitigate the damages. (I admit doing it, but didn't realise because...) IANAL (I am not a lawyer) Richard. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
