Re: [Wireshark-users] Windows installer bug: Users shouldn't have to accept GNU GPL
On Sunday 15 October 2006 00:07, ronnie sahlberg wrote: Thanks for slashdoting us. I specifically did not do that. I made no mention of wireshark in my slashdot submission, or any of my comments. I don't want to create any criticism of this fine project, or increase the burden on its servers. I just want to discuss what I see as a sub-optimal choice by the developer of the wireshark installer (and other GPL application installers on Windows), and to offer to improve the installer, if the improvement is likely to be accepted. I dont think anyone here cares what slasdot people may speculate on regarding their thoughts on how GPL works or about displaying the GPL when installing software. That's unfortunate, because among the large number of people who read and comment on slashdot, there are many who understand these issues very well. There are also many who do not, but careful reading makes them easy to separate. The current wireshark behaviour with displaying the GPL and having an ACCEPT button is perfectly fine and is unlikely to change. That's certainly your prerogative -- the FSF explicitly states that such click-wrap usage of the GPL is not forbidden. I just think it's unfortunate that GPL developers choose to propagate the EULA meme. And yes. Users HAVE TO accept the GPL either implicitely or explicitely since the GPL is the only thing that makes it legal for the user to use and redistribute the software. The GPL is the only thing that allows people to redistribute the software, but the GPL has no bearing on its use. The GPL explicitly disclaims any restriction on usage, and, further, copyright law specifically allows usage of copyrighted software as long as the copy is acquired legally. In the US, see section 117 of Title 17. Other nations have similar provisions, as well as generally less restrictive laws. Users that violate the GPL gets their rights to use the GPLed work revoked and such a user would never be able to start using wireshark again or redistribute it. Again, you're half right: failure to comply with the terms of the GPL revokes its granted permissions to create derivative works and to distribute the software, but has no effect on the user's ability to use the software. Since the consequences to a user that violates the GPL are so severe, it would be a great disservice to the user if the GPL is not clearly displayed to the user and that the user has to click that button so that the user is aware of his/her rights and responsibilities. Those responsibilities aren't relevant for those who only use the software. Those who wish to distribute, of course, need to understand the GPL, since without the GPL they have no permission to do so. That's why the FSF's recommendation is to display a notice telling users where to get information about they copyright license. Could you please describe WHY accepting the GPL is a problem for you and your users and WHY you think users should not be informed about the GPL? Certainly. I've explained it before, but I'm more than happy to explain again. Accepting the GPL is not a problem at all. Particularly not for those who only use the software, since the GPL places no constraints whatsoever on users. And, of course, if it's a problem for those who wish to make use of the rights granted by the GPL, well, that's just too bad for them, because those are the conditions. The problem I have with the practice is simply that it perpetuates a bad idea created by and fostered by closed source software makers who wish to exercise more control over their software than is given them by copyright law. The click-wrap EULA that most users blithely click through when installing proprietary software typically limits them in all sorts of ridiculous ways. For example, it typically prohibits reverse engineering, for any reason. EULAs are, in general, bad for users and directly contradict the ideas that underly the Free Software movement. Free Software is a better way, and my goal is to help users understand that. I do not think displaying a click-wrap GPL accomplishes that. It would if users would read the license, but they don't, and so the effect is simply to perpetuate the EULA mindset. A much better approach, IMO, is to follow the FSF's guidelines and to display a brief, non-legalese explanation that makes clear that: 1. The software has no warranty 2. The software is free for use and can be freely redistributed, under certain condtions. Per the FSF's suggested text, the explanation should also tell the user where to find the details. Actually, I think right below the brief, simple text is a very good place to put the GPL. My aims would be to: 1. Provide a simple explanation that people will actually read, so they really do understand that this is *different* (and better) than all that other software they use; and 2. Make clear that if all they want to do is use the
Re: [Wireshark-users] Windows installer bug: Users shouldn't have to accept GNU GPL
Thank you for your answer. I understand your viewpoint much better now. best regards ronnie sahlberg On 10/15/06, Shawn Willden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sunday 15 October 2006 00:07, ronnie sahlberg wrote: Thanks for slashdoting us. I specifically did not do that. I made no mention of wireshark in my slashdot submission, or any of my comments. I don't want to create any criticism of this fine project, or increase the burden on its servers. I just want to discuss what I see as a sub-optimal choice by the developer of the wireshark installer (and other GPL application installers on Windows), and to offer to improve the installer, if the improvement is likely to be accepted. I dont think anyone here cares what slasdot people may speculate on regarding their thoughts on how GPL works or about displaying the GPL when installing software. That's unfortunate, because among the large number of people who read and comment on slashdot, there are many who understand these issues very well. There are also many who do not, but careful reading makes them easy to separate. The current wireshark behaviour with displaying the GPL and having an ACCEPT button is perfectly fine and is unlikely to change. That's certainly your prerogative -- the FSF explicitly states that such click-wrap usage of the GPL is not forbidden. I just think it's unfortunate that GPL developers choose to propagate the EULA meme. And yes. Users HAVE TO accept the GPL either implicitely or explicitely since the GPL is the only thing that makes it legal for the user to use and redistribute the software. The GPL is the only thing that allows people to redistribute the software, but the GPL has no bearing on its use. The GPL explicitly disclaims any restriction on usage, and, further, copyright law specifically allows usage of copyrighted software as long as the copy is acquired legally. In the US, see section 117 of Title 17. Other nations have similar provisions, as well as generally less restrictive laws. Users that violate the GPL gets their rights to use the GPLed work revoked and such a user would never be able to start using wireshark again or redistribute it. Again, you're half right: failure to comply with the terms of the GPL revokes its granted permissions to create derivative works and to distribute the software, but has no effect on the user's ability to use the software. Since the consequences to a user that violates the GPL are so severe, it would be a great disservice to the user if the GPL is not clearly displayed to the user and that the user has to click that button so that the user is aware of his/her rights and responsibilities. Those responsibilities aren't relevant for those who only use the software. Those who wish to distribute, of course, need to understand the GPL, since without the GPL they have no permission to do so. That's why the FSF's recommendation is to display a notice telling users where to get information about they copyright license. Could you please describe WHY accepting the GPL is a problem for you and your users and WHY you think users should not be informed about the GPL? Certainly. I've explained it before, but I'm more than happy to explain again. Accepting the GPL is not a problem at all. Particularly not for those who only use the software, since the GPL places no constraints whatsoever on users. And, of course, if it's a problem for those who wish to make use of the rights granted by the GPL, well, that's just too bad for them, because those are the conditions. The problem I have with the practice is simply that it perpetuates a bad idea created by and fostered by closed source software makers who wish to exercise more control over their software than is given them by copyright law. The click-wrap EULA that most users blithely click through when installing proprietary software typically limits them in all sorts of ridiculous ways. For example, it typically prohibits reverse engineering, for any reason. EULAs are, in general, bad for users and directly contradict the ideas that underly the Free Software movement. Free Software is a better way, and my goal is to help users understand that. I do not think displaying a click-wrap GPL accomplishes that. It would if users would read the license, but they don't, and so the effect is simply to perpetuate the EULA mindset. A much better approach, IMO, is to follow the FSF's guidelines and to display a brief, non-legalese explanation that makes clear that: 1. The software has no warranty 2. The software is free for use and can be freely redistributed, under certain condtions. Per the FSF's suggested text, the explanation should also tell the user where to find the details. Actually, I think right below the brief, simple text is a very good place to put the GPL. My aims would be to: 1. Provide a simple explanation that
Re: [Wireshark-users] Windows installer bug: Users shouldn't have to accept GNU GPL
On Friday 22 September 2006 03:14, ronnie sahlberg wrote: I dont really understand. I'll try to clarify, then :-) Exactly what is the problem with displaying the GPL to the user and enforce that the user clicks on a button such as Accept ? The problem is that it reinforces the EULA mindset that it's normal to have to agree to some arbitrary set of restrictions before being able to install and use a software package. In RMS' ideal world, and mine, users should expect to be able to run any software that they acquire legally, without having to agree to anything. The GPL does, in fact, support this notion, but the increasingly common practice of using the GPL as a click-wrap agreement undermines it. It is a good thing if users are educated about the GPL. I agree. That's why I suggest that Wireshark's installer display it, but take pains to make it clear that the user is not required to agree to any conditions. Before we remove the Accept button or the GPL text we should first get approval for those changes from all those other packages first. That is not necessary. Their software is also distributed under the GPL, and the GPL does not require that the text of the license be displayed (only that it be provided with the software) and specifically disclaims any requirement that the user AGREE to the GPL in order to run the software. Of course, if Wireshark includes components that are under licenses other than the GPL, it is necessary to abide by any tems of those licenses, which may include displaying those licenses. Shawn. ___ Wireshark-users mailing list Wireshark-users@wireshark.org http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-users
Re: [Wireshark-users] Windows installer bug: Users shouldn't have to accept GNU GPL
On Thursday 21 September 2006 09:29, Jaap Keuter wrote: I'll copy my reply here as well in order to completely inform the community. Thanks. I thought about doing that, but decided it would be better to let you :-) Well, users of the program don't have to accept the GPL. I can walk up to any machine which has Wireshark installed and use the program without being asked to accept the GNU GPL. On the other hand, handlers of a copy of the software, which they want to install, do have to accept the GNU GPL since it concerns distribution. This isn't correct under US law (probably the strictest in the world, thanks to our big media lobbies), and the FSF's opinion, according to the GPL FAQ, is that it's not required anywhere. Their FAQ states that it is neither required nor forbidden. This isn't an issue of legality, it's a question of perception and what does the best job of helping people understand what free software is. I think a click-wrap agreement is a bad precedent to follow, but I do think displaying the GPL up front is a good idea, hence my recommendation to introduce the license but be careful not to imply that the user has to agree to it. Thanks, Shawn. ___ Wireshark-users mailing list Wireshark-users@wireshark.org http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-users
Re: [Wireshark-users] Windows installer bug: Users shouldn't have to accept GNU GPL
Shawn Willden wrote: This may seem like a minor point, but I think it's significant, because it perpetuates the idea that you have to virtually sign some agreement before you can use some software. Much of the point of the GPL is to show that there is another way (and, we think, a *better* way), so it's unfortunate to have GPL software reinforcing the wrong idea. I understand your point and mostly agree to it. My suggestion is to retain the display of the GPL upon installation, but put a heading on top that is something like: This is Free Software, and you are free to use it all you like, with no restrictions or conditions. If you want to give copies of it to other people, or to change it, you can do that, too, but there are some limitations designed to make sure that whoever you give it to has the same freedoms you do. The details are described below: I don't think it will help the users in the long run, that any GPL'ed program will add it's own interpretation to the GPL! Otherwise you'll end up just like the myriad of slightly different BSD like licenses floating around. Let the user learn the GPL once, so he can apply it's knowledge without rethinking a slightly enhanced license again and again. There are far too many open source licenses already floating around. Also, the Accept button (or is it Agree? I'd have to go look again) should say Okay or perhaps even better Dismiss. Comments? I wouldn't have any problem if someone changes the Accept to an Ok button (however, it will be some more work than it seems IMO). Dismiss is an unexpected term, as a not native english speaker I would expect the installer to terminate in that case. But: I don't like the idea to add any interpretation to the GPL! I'm not a lawyer and I don't know what this will actually mean in lawyers speak and don't want to have any surprise. The developers (including myself) put this software under the GPL and so be it! I don't like the idea to add any interpretation of this license in the installer or elsewhere! Regards, ULFL ___ Wireshark-users mailing list Wireshark-users@wireshark.org http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-users
