Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 1.5.4

On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 06:40:28PM +0000, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

Hi,

On Thu, 7 Feb 2008, Junio C Hamano wrote:

quoted

Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Besides, if you do not like that our installer shows the GPL, just go and 
make your own (but be sure to shell out money to your lawyer of choice to 
confirm that the GPL allows you to do that).

The Git installer of msysGit will always show the GPL, and have the user 
accept it.

I may be missing the details because I do not do Windows myself,
but if you are discussing the "end user binary distribution"
one, then I think:

 * It is a mistake if you do not to show GPL, as you are
   redistributing GPL code in a binary form and you need to tell
   the end user his rights (e.g. he can request source for it,
   the source is found at a well known location, etc.)

 * The restriction on redistribution of modified program would
   probably not apply (unless the receiver hacks binary) to most
   casual users, so making the label say "I Accept" feels a bit
   silly (but still is technically correct).  As Nico suggested,
   "Continue" may be fine here, as long as the message already
   says "this program is distributed under this license you are
   looking at".

I recall you had another installer that gives the full
development environment for hack on "git" with a clone of the
git repository.  I do not know if you still offer that
installer, but "I Accept" would be very appropriate for that
one.

Yes, the full installer does not (yet) ask for acceptance of the GPL, 
basically because I am too lazy, and also because I expect developers to 
actually read the notices in the copyright section in the source code, 
should they modify the source.

The reasoning for showing the GPL in the Git installer I cannot explain, 
because I was not part of it.  However, I am very much in favour, for two 
reasons:

- the end users should really know that the software is licensed in a 
  pretty free way.  Most of the users will have read about "the GPL", and 
  know what it says without reading it.  Others may see it for the first 
  time, and be astonished that such a license exists, and actually covers 
  a useful program.

- _every_ serious Windows program comes with a click-through license.  We 
  just don't want to be left behind.

- even if it would be not necessary to accept the license (which I am not 
  at all sure about, but do not care enough to learn about it, either), I 
  am not amused by somebody I do not know of, and who did not share 
  anything with me that I know of, asking me to remove that license 
  dialog.

I beg your pardon? I never asked you such thing. My first e-mail was,
verbatim:
-- begin --
Why do I have to accept the GPL to install msysgit?

Only the "NO WARRANTY ..." should be required, GPL is only required for
distribution (and you could make that information available at install).
-- end --

Any next e-mail in reply to this thread, from me, were only suggestions
and reasonings for *not requiring acceptance*, not for removing the
screen.

  If you are not okay with accepting a tit-for-tat license, well... I'll 
  not give you "tat".

I never said I was. I mean, would I had sent a patch to this list if I
wasn't OK with the license?

So there is really nothing that I can think of, which would change my mind 
about that "issue".

I was asking for the reasons for the installer being like it is, not for
you to change your mind.

-- 
Luciano Rocha [off-list ref]
Eurotux Informática, S.A. <http://www.eurotux.com/>

Hi,

On Thu, 7 Feb 2008, Luciano Rocha wrote:

I was asking for the reasons for the installer being like it is, not for 
you to change your mind.

I am sorry: I misunderstood.

Two reasons: we stay on the safe side (because no lawyer could now 
possible say that we forgot to present the license), and we want to give 
the Git installer some "professional" look-and-feel ;-)

Please ignore my comments that offended you.

Ciao,
Dscho