First post, by WhiteDragon
The Windows installer version 6.1 requires acceptance of the GPL. Does that conflict with clause 5 of the license?
The Windows installer version 6.1 requires acceptance of the GPL. Does that conflict with clause 5 of the license?
I deleted the poll (they do not work on this board - I think that all answers go to the first option).
As for the rest of your mail: I would like to have only these problems ... 😀
Mirek
it is still a concern though, as presenting the GPL as a license that must be accepted to use the software is clearly in violation of the GPL. That is bad.
I think so Brain, but if they called them sad meals, kids wouldn't buy them. Narf.
The installer system doesn't have an alternative way.
A license should be shown else the software is assumed to be license less or so. (or so i heard)
Water flows down the stream
How to ask questions the smart way!
that is correct, however, it should be an informative screen only, instead of requiring acceptance. For instance, the attached mockup. Also, note that the GPL actually gives some advice on how to advertise the fact that the program is licensed. They suggest a display such as:
<one line to give the program's name and a brief idea of what it does.> Copyright (C) <year> <name of author> This program i […]
<one line to give the program's name and a brief idea of what it does.>
Copyright (C) <year> <name of author>
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version.
This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
GNU General Public License for more details.
You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA
to be shown when the program starts up. IANAL, but I assume that the process of installing the software could possibly qualify as copying, but I don't think it qualifies as distribution. In fact, it seems to me that it is not even copying by a reasonable definition: since I downloaded the code from someone who is distributing it, and they must have accepted the license in order to have distribution rights. Therefore I think the act of downloading it would be covered under your (the distributor's) acceptance of the license. And of course for use a license is not required. The license is mainly to inform anyone who wishes to redistribute the copy downloaded from you, or to make a modified copy and distribute that.
I think so Brain, but if they called them sad meals, kids wouldn't buy them. Narf.
I've changed my NSIS script a little to include a change to the default "I Agree" button text to what you recommend "Next ->".
I've tested it and it looks ok.
In the .NSI file you need to add what is in bold:
LicenseText "DOSBox v${VER_MAYOR}.${VER_MINOR} License - ${VER_CVS} - Not Officially Supported" "Next ->"
(Screenshot below) I haven't released this build yet but I will tomorrow morning EST time.
Gosh I love Photobucket.com 😁.
Ieremiou
----------
Helping Debug DOSBox.
I didn't know that aditional flag.
Will add it
Water flows down the stream
How to ask questions the smart way!