> Every time I install OO.org on Windows (does not happen on Debian), I get
> a license agreement prompt. The agreement is the GPL. The question is why is
> there GPL license for binary distribution of OpenOffice?
> The end user does NOT have to accept the GPL to be able to use the
> binaries. The GPL is only applicable to the use of the OpenOffice.Org source
> code or dynamic libraries.
> I think the proper way of having a GPL notice in OpenOffice installation
> process would be to state that OO binaries are free and that the source code
> of OO is available under a GPL license. It may even state the GPL license,
> but the end user should not have to agree (or disagree) to be able to
> install the software.
> GPL is only applicable to the developer/(re-)distributor. It is NOT an
> end-user license agreement (EULA).
> Thoughts?
100% agreement. I think the installation program should even say something
like "OpenOffice comes without any EULA so you do not need to agree to any
license before being allowed to install and run this program.
Additionally to those rights granted by the normal copyright laws, you can
also modify and share copies of this program as long as you abide by the
terms of the GNU LGPL".
This is a very common problem in installation programs for (L)GPL
applications, and I think the GNU project should try and make an effort to
fix those cases (e.g. by drafting a standard text like the one I suggest
above, writing a webpage about it and then sending notices pointing to this
webpage to all the applications that fell into this trap).
Stefan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
