Even for developers the 'standard' approach for GPL is to state the license is, for example, GPL 2.0, and then to provide a link back to the official GPL license site for the details. So I feel even including the full text of the GPL in the distro is problematic.
And BTW, presenting this to the end-user during the install of an "end-user version" is especially inappropriate IMHO. Pieter On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 13:28:06 -0800, John Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is the license appropriate for the executable, or just the source > version of Chandler? > > John > > Pieter Hartsook wrote: > > >With the recent introduction of the Windows installer for Chandler the > >end-user is presented with a GPL liscense agreement that one MUST > >agree to before Chandler will install. I am concerned about the user > >experience, and feel that introducing this mandatory step is > >off-putting and inappropriate. > > > >While the current versions of Chanler are in fact released under terms > >of the GPL, we have here-to-for referenced the license terms in the > >documentation and not pushed it in the user's face as the very first > >experience in "using" Chandler. > > > >Unless there is some compelling reason for its use I would suggest we > >remove this step in the 0.5 release. (When we finally settle on the > >actual Chandler end-user licensing terms it might be appropriate to > >reintroduce this step during the installation process.) > > > >Pieter Hartsook > >OSAF marketing guy > >_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > > > >Open Source Applications Foundation "Dev" mailing list > >http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/dev > > > > > > -- -------- sent via Gmail ----------- Pieter Hartsook [EMAIL PROTECTED] 510 3-93-93-70 cell phone Skype: callto://hartsook _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Open Source Applications Foundation "Dev" mailing list http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
