Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   anna (navi@social.vlhl.dev)'s status on Friday, 04-Oct-2024 01:30:20 JST anna
   "please accept the gpl before proceeding"
   • Embed this notice
     Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: (lanodan@queer.hacktivis.me)'s status on Friday, 04-Oct-2024 01:30:15 JST Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:

     in reply to

     • small, versatile 6DoF c++ witch *ada
     @ada @navi Except the 0BSD, all the BSD licences have at least one condition: Copyright notice and license kept intact.
     
     And except 0BSD and BSD-1-Clause, the Copyright notice must also be kept in binary form, which is why you can see BSD terms (among a pile of other licences) with most embedded devices.
   • Embed this notice
     small, versatile 6DoF c++ witch *ada (ada@zoner.work)'s status on Friday, 04-Oct-2024 01:30:17 JST small, versatile 6DoF c++ witch *ada

     in reply to

     @navi@social.vlhl.dev i mean the gpl does have conditions that you have to follow (source disclosure upon request), so there is something for you to actually accept to.
     
     it's not a no-condition license like BSD.

   • Embed this notice
     anna (navi@social.vlhl.dev)'s status on Friday, 04-Oct-2024 01:30:18 JST anna

     in reply to

     • small, versatile 6DoF c++ witch *ada
     @ada being aware of the gpl != "accept EULA" button
     
     most installers just re-use the EULA mechanism and slap the GPL as the license, but all you'd need to do is show the gpl and have the user go next, clicking "i accept" is the meme, not making the user aware of it
     
     and in both cases they'll ignore it and just continue, the only difference is being forced to check a meaningless box
   • Embed this notice
     small, versatile 6DoF c++ witch *ada (ada@zoner.work)'s status on Friday, 04-Oct-2024 01:30:19 JST small, versatile 6DoF c++ witch *ada

     in reply to

     @navi@social.vlhl.dev ok a hot take
     
     this meme is kind of in bad faith, because you do actually have to be aware of the gpl terms as the end user as if you distribute binary forms you now need to comply with the license and have a copy of the source.

   • Embed this notice
     anna (navi@social.vlhl.dev)'s status on Friday, 04-Oct-2024 01:33:47 JST anna

     in reply to

     • small, versatile 6DoF c++ witch *ada
     @ada if you have the source you have the license though, repos have LICENSE.md on them for that case (or reuse's licences/ folder)
     
     so it's kinda hard to lose the terms if they're attached to what you're distributing
     Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     small, versatile 6DoF c++ witch *ada (ada@zoner.work)'s status on Friday, 04-Oct-2024 01:33:49 JST small, versatile 6DoF c++ witch *ada

     in reply to

     @navi@social.vlhl.dev it's about reducing liability on the origin. there's no defense like "it was impossibly hard to find the terms" after being literally shown it and having to consent to it.
     
     they don't need explicit consent for most EULAs either as it's implied in the service terms but it helps the legal process. (aka it's scumware)

   • Embed this notice
     anna (navi@social.vlhl.dev)'s status on Friday, 04-Oct-2024 01:33:50 JST anna

     in reply to

     • small, versatile 6DoF c++ witch *ada
     @ada you need to follow those restrictions upon distribution, not usage, this distinction is what makes the gpl a copyright law based license instead of an EULA
     
     and is also the reason distros don't need an "accept eula" thing built into their package managers