[Dev] EULA in Chandler 0.5?

[Pieter Hartsook]

Even for developers the 'standard' approach for GPL is to state the
license is, for example, GPL 2.0, and then to provide a link back to
the official GPL license site for the details. So I feel even
including the full text of the GPL in the distro is problematic.

And BTW, presenting this to the end-user during the install of an
"end-user version" is especially inappropriate IMHO.

Pieter


On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 13:28:06 -0800, John Anderson
<john at osafoundation.org> wrote:
> 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
> >
> >
> 
> 


-- 
-------- sent via Gmail -----------
Pieter Hartsook
hartsook at osafoundation.org

510 3-93-93-70 cell phone
Skype: callto://hartsook