[Dev] EULA in Chandler 0.5?

[John Anderson]

Is the license appropriate for the executable, or just the source 
version of Chandler?

John

Pieter Hartsook wrote:

>With the recent introduction of the Windows installer for Chandler the
>end-user is presented with a GPL liscense agreement that one MUST
>agree to before Chandler will install. I am concerned about the user
>experience, and feel that introducing this mandatory step is
>off-putting and inappropriate.
>
>While the current versions of Chanler are in fact released under terms
>of the GPL, we have here-to-for referenced the license terms in the
>documentation and not pushed it in the user's face as the very first
>experience in "using" Chandler.
>
>Unless there is some compelling reason for its use I would suggest we
>remove this step in the 0.5 release. (When we finally settle on the
>actual Chandler end-user licensing terms it might be appropriate to
>reintroduce this step during the installation process.)
>
>Pieter Hartsook
>OSAF marketing guy
>_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>
>Open Source Applications Foundation "Dev" mailing list
>http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
>  
>