Wireshark · Wireshark-users: Re: [Wireshark-users] Windows installer bug: Users shouldn't have to accept GNU GPL

[Shawn Willden <shawn-wireshark@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sunday 15 October 2006 00:07, ronnie sahlberg wrote:
> Thanks for slashdoting us.

I specifically did not do that.  I made no mention of wireshark in my slashdot 
submission, or any of my comments.  I don't want to create any criticism of 
this fine project, or increase the burden on its servers.  I just want to 
discuss what I see as a sub-optimal choice by the developer of the wireshark 
installer (and other GPL application installers on Windows), and to offer to 
improve the installer, if the improvement is likely to be accepted.

> I dont think anyone here cares what slasdot people may speculate on
> regarding their thoughts on how GPL works or about displaying the GPL
> when installing software.

That's unfortunate, because among the large number of people who read and 
comment on slashdot, there are many who understand these issues very well.  
There are also many who do not, but careful reading makes them easy to 
separate.

> The current wireshark behaviour with displaying the GPL and having an
> ACCEPT button is perfectly fine and is unlikely to change.

That's certainly your prerogative -- the FSF explicitly states that such 
click-wrap usage of the GPL is not forbidden.  I just think it's unfortunate 
that GPL developers choose to propagate the EULA meme.

> And yes. Users HAVE TO accept the GPL either implicitely or
> explicitely since the GPL is the only thing that makes it legal for
> the user to use and redistribute the software.

The GPL is the only thing that allows people to redistribute the software, but 
the GPL has no bearing on its use.  The GPL explicitly disclaims any 
restriction on usage, and, further, copyright law specifically allows usage 
of copyrighted software as long as the copy is acquired legally.  In the US, 
see section 117 of Title 17.  Other nations have similar provisions, as well 
as generally less restrictive laws.

> Users that violate the GPL gets their rights to use the GPLed work
> revoked and such a user would never be able to start using wireshark
> again or redistribute it.

Again, you're half right:  failure to comply with the terms of the GPL revokes 
its granted permissions to create derivative works and to distribute the 
software, but has no effect on the user's ability to use the software.

> Since the consequences to a user that violates the GPL are so severe,
> it would be a great disservice to the user if the GPL is not clearly
> displayed to the user and that the user has to click that button so
> that the user is aware of his/her rights and responsibilities.

Those responsibilities aren't relevant for those who only use the software.  
Those who wish to distribute, of course, need to understand the GPL, since 
without the GPL they have no permission to do so.  That's why the FSF's 
recommendation is to display a notice telling users where to get information 
about they copyright license.

> Could you please describe WHY accepting the GPL is a problem for you
> and your users and WHY you think users should not be informed about
> the GPL?

Certainly.  I've explained it before, but I'm more than happy to explain 
again.

Accepting the GPL is not a problem at all.  Particularly not for those who 
only use the software, since the GPL places no constraints whatsoever on 
users.  And, of course, if it's a problem for those who wish to make use of 
the rights granted by the GPL, well, that's just too bad for them, because 
those are the conditions.

The problem I have with the practice is simply that it perpetuates a bad idea 
created by and fostered by closed source software makers who wish to exercise 
more control over their software than is given them by copyright law.

The click-wrap EULA that most users blithely click through when installing 
proprietary software typically limits them in all sorts of ridiculous ways.  
For example, it typically prohibits reverse engineering, for any reason.  
EULAs are, in general, bad for users and directly contradict the ideas that 
underly the Free Software movement.

Free Software is a better way, and my goal is to help users understand that.  
I do not think displaying a click-wrap GPL accomplishes that.  It would if 
users would read the license, but they don't, and so the effect is simply to 
perpetuate the EULA mindset.

A much better approach, IMO, is to follow the FSF's guidelines and to display 
a brief, non-legalese explanation that makes clear that:

1.  The software has no warranty
2.  The software is free for use and can be freely redistributed, under 
certain condtions.

Per the FSF's suggested text, the explanation should also tell the user where 
to find the details.  Actually, I think right below the brief, simple text is 
a very good place to put the GPL.  My aims would be to:

1.  Provide a simple explanation that people will actually read, so they 
really do understand that this is *different* (and better) than all that 
other software they use; and
2.  Make clear that if all they want to do is use the program, they don't have 
to agree to anything.

It's not that I don't want them to agree -- I want them to get used to the 
idea that they *should* be able to use software without first agreeing to 
some pile of legalese.  And, of course, that is the case with the GPL, and 
all Free Software licenses.

> What useage pattern do you have in mind where having to accept the GPL
> licence is such a major problem?

Usage by users who are not really aware of Free Software and think that 
agreeing to a big pile of opaque legalese before using an app is not only 
normal and expected, but required.  The problem is that it's a missed 
opportunity to educate those users about Free Software and what it means.

Thanks,

	Shawn.