["ronnie sahlberg" <ronniesahlberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thank you for your answer.

I understand your viewpoint much better now.


best regards
ronnie sahlberg


On 10/15/06, Shawn Willden <shawn-wireshark@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-users