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 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 program, they don't > have > to agree to anything. > > It's not that I don't want them to agree -- I want them to get used to the > idea that they *should* be able to use software without first agreeing to > some pile of legalese. And, of course, that is the case with the GPL, and > all Free Software licenses. > > > What useage pattern do you have in mind where having to accept the GPL > > licence is such a major problem? > > Usage by users who are not really aware of Free Software and think that > agreeing to a big pile of opaque legalese before using an app is not only > normal and expected, but required. The problem is that it's a missed > opportunity to educate those users about Free Software and what it means. > > Thanks, > > Shawn. > _______________________________________________ > Wireshark-users mailing list > Wireshark-users@wireshark.org > http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-users > _______________________________________________ Wireshark-users mailing list Wireshark-users@wireshark.org http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-users
