Bas Wijnen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi,
>> Also things are getting better on the hardware support side, though >> we'll still see the occasional "scanner head bumps against case". > > Ah, ok. I though the hardware damage was just theoretical. If it's > real, a warning would be appropriate IMO. Believe me, it's not :) One of these days, you too will have to jump on the power button/plug at the rear of your scanner while at the same time shouting "WTF?" :) > So what is the issue exactly? That he might be liable if the user > didn't accept the license? Wouldn't that also be true for the rest of > the GPL'd software in Debian? It is, indeed. The "NO WARRANTY" clause of the GPL is not valid in a number of countries. The GPL may be valid in full in the USA (though it has not been proven to date), but it for sure isn't pretty much anywhere else. >> accepting its license. In this case, the clickthrough makes it clear >> that the user accepted the license and is now bound by its terms. > > How does that make a difference? The warrenty disclaimer is a notice, > not something the user accepts (AFAIK). It just informs the user that > there is no warrenty. I don't see the point in explicitly accepting > that. If a user wants warrenty, they should get upstream (or whoever is > providing it) accept that they are providing it, not the other way > around. But IANAL, and I could be wrong on this. It's the same when you click "I accept" after reading (erm) an EULA while installing whatever proprietary crap (like, err, a SUN JDK for instance). It makes sure you've agreed to the license, and it may or may not have a legal value. > I fully agree. And I think these relationships are important. But if > upstream is asking us to do things which we, as Debian, agree are not > the way to go, then IMO we should do things our way. It's preferrable I agree when it comes to things like license issues (cdrecord, ion3, mozilla) or equally important things. But this? Come on. >> Anyway, I am amazed at the attention this clickthrough is getting. > > I think it has to do with what I wrote about how I feel about legal > stuff: I want to avoid it whenever possible. With Debian, I can do that You're a FLOSS developer and moreover a Debian Developer. You cannot avoid legal stuff, not one second. That's unfortunate, but that's how it is today. (and it sucks, yes) > (as a user) without getting in trouble. Debian maintainers will make > sure that things are acceptable, and users don't have to check for I am trying to protect both my users and my upstreams. This is a typical case: keeping the clickthrough protects both the user and upstream :) JB. -- Julien BLACHE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Debian, because code matters more Debian & GNU/Linux Developer | <http://www.debian.org> Public key available on <http://www.jblache.org> - KeyID: F5D6 5169 GPG Fingerprint : 935A 79F1 C8B3 3521 FD62 7CC7 CD61 4FD7 F5D6 5169 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
