[digikam] [Bug 424679] Windows installer erroneously requires accepting the GPL

2021-05-13 Thread Maik Qualmann
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=424679

Maik Qualmann  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME
   Version Fixed In||7.3.0
 Status|REPORTED|RESOLVED

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.

[digikam] [Bug 424679] Windows installer erroneously requires accepting the GPL

2021-05-06 Thread Maik Qualmann
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=424679

--- Comment #5 from Maik Qualmann  ---
There is also no reaction at Darktable on this topic, since according to the
FAQ confirmation is also possible, we close here.

Maik

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.

[digikam] [Bug 424679] Windows installer erroneously requires accepting the GPL

2021-05-06 Thread bugzilla_noreply
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=424679

--- Comment #4 from caulier.gil...@gmail.com ---
Maik, so closing ?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.

[digikam] [Bug 424679] Windows installer erroneously requires accepting the GPL

2020-07-26 Thread Chris Morgan
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=424679

--- Comment #3 from Chris Morgan  ---
Hmm, I wasn’t aware of
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#ClickThrough. Must have forgotten
it; I last read that document in 2007 or so.

Still, I disagree with its interpretation of the license. The text of the
license says that “You are not required to accept this License” and that “The
act of running the Program is not restricted”, and clause six states that “You
may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the
rights granted herein”. To me it seems fairly cut and dried that *requiring*
acceptance is a material restriction of this nature, regardless of this
agreement not imposing any obligations on you, and thus not acceptable. But I
should probably take this up with FSF. Within the scope of this project, given
that guidance from FSF, closing this WONTFIX or similar makes sense, even if
it’s technically straightforward to resolve and would, I think, be mildly worth
doing.

> After all licensing is not programming, we don't have time to lost with this 
> kind of details...

I have to say this: that’s an attitude that’s liable to get you in a lot of hot
water some day. If you license your code in such and such a way, that puts
legal responsibilities upon you, even if it’s not programming. I see your
reasoning used to justify ignoring copyright and other aspects of the law
regularly, and it sometimes backfires expensively. (The only reason that it
doesn’t backfire more commonly is because enough other people share the
lethargy.)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.

[digikam] [Bug 424679] Windows installer erroneously requires accepting the GPL

2020-07-26 Thread bugzilla_noreply
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=424679

caulier.gil...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||caulier.gil...@gmail.com

--- Comment #2 from caulier.gil...@gmail.com ---
yes, sure no problem... After all licensing is not programming, we don't have
time to lost with this kind of details...

Gilles

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.

[digikam] [Bug 424679] Windows installer erroneously requires accepting the GPL

2020-07-26 Thread Maik Qualmann
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=424679

Maik Qualmann  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||metzping...@gmail.com

--- Comment #1 from Maik Qualmann  ---
Here from the GNU FAQ whether the GPL must be approved when installing:

-
Some software packaging systems have a place which requires you to click
through or otherwise indicate assent to the terms of the GPL. This is neither
required nor forbidden. With or without a click through, the GPL's rules remain
the same.

Merely agreeing to the GPL doesn't place any obligations on you. You are not
required to agree to anything to merely use software which is licensed under
the GPL. You only have obligations if you modify or distribute the software. If
it really bothers you to click through the GPL, nothing stops you from hacking
the GPLed software to bypass this.
-

So it is neither necessary nor forbidden! If Gilles agrees, I close the bug.

Maik

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.