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
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
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
[ Note, this was submitted as bug 1115 ]
The GPL doesn't cover usage, just modification and distribution. Users
shouldn't be required to agree to anything prior to using the software, but
the current installer prompts them to accept the GPL prior to installation.
This may seem like a minor
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
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*
