[Dev] EULA in Chandler 0.5?

[Mike Taylor]

I just talked to a friend of mine who works for the FSF and he 
explained to me that as long as the GPL2 license is included in the 
distribution there is no need to display it in a "click thru" manner.

I'll remove it from the install tonight

---
Bear
http://code-bear.com

Open Source Applications Foundation (OSAF)
http://www.osafoundation.org

PGP Fingerprint = 9996 719F 973D B11B E111  D770 9331 E822 40B3 CD29


On Mar 3, 2005, at 8:35 PM, Ted Leung wrote:

>
> On Mar 3, 2005, at 2:05 PM, Pieter Hartsook wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Actually the GPL 2.0 text states that you must provide a copy of the 
> license with the program.
>
> Our situation is even more problematic because we are both a binary 
> and source distribution even for the end user install, because the 
> python .py source files are there.
>
>>
>> And BTW, presenting this to the end-user during the install of an
>> "end-user version" is especially inappropriate IMHO.
>
> I'm not sure what the right thing is, although on many linuxes you can 
> install binary applications without being shown the GPL for each 
> package.  This is true even in the highly ideological Debian 
> distribution.
>
> Ted
>
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>
> Open Source Applications Foundation "Dev" mailing list
> http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.osafoundation.org/pipermail/dev/attachments/20050303/5b1ff282/PGP.bin