digiKam-7.0.0-Win64.exe The installer says “If you accept the terms of the agreement, click I Agree to continue. You must accept the agreement to install digiKam 7.0.0.” and has only an “I Agree” button to continue. Yet clause five of the GPLv2 says, You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. (If you want to modify and distribute it you need to accept it, but that’s not the case for the installer alone.) The most common solution for this that I’ve seen in installers is to make it informational only: “I Agree” button becomes “Next”, and the explanatory text above changes to say something like “The License Agreement is provided for your information only.” For reference, https://github.com/darktable-org/darktable/issues/5792 is one of the other issues I’ve made (I’ve filed quite a few of these GPL-compliance-in-installers bugs!), showing approximately the NSIS code that will be necessary to fix this issue.
Here from the GNU FAQ whether the GPL must be approved when installing: --------------------- Some software packaging systems have a place which requires you to click through or otherwise indicate assent to the terms of the GPL. This is neither required nor forbidden. With or without a click through, the GPL's rules remain the same. Merely agreeing to the GPL doesn't place any obligations on you. You are not required to agree to anything to merely use software which is licensed under the GPL. You only have obligations if you modify or distribute the software. If it really bothers you to click through the GPL, nothing stops you from hacking the GPLed software to bypass this. --------------------- So it is neither necessary nor forbidden! If Gilles agrees, I close the bug. Maik
yes, sure no problem... After all licensing is not programming, we don't have time to lost with this kind of details... Gilles
Hmm, I wasn’t aware of https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#ClickThrough. Must have forgotten it; I last read that document in 2007 or so. Still, I disagree with its interpretation of the license. The text of the license says that “You are not required to accept this License” and that “The act of running the Program is not restricted”, and clause six states that “You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein”. To me it seems fairly cut and dried that *requiring* acceptance is a material restriction of this nature, regardless of this agreement not imposing any obligations on you, and thus not acceptable. But I should probably take this up with FSF. Within the scope of this project, given that guidance from FSF, closing this WONTFIX or similar makes sense, even if it’s technically straightforward to resolve and would, I think, be mildly worth doing. > After all licensing is not programming, we don't have time to lost with this kind of details... I have to say this: that’s an attitude that’s liable to get you in a lot of hot water some day. If you license your code in such and such a way, that puts legal responsibilities upon you, even if it’s not programming. I see your reasoning used to justify ignoring copyright and other aspects of the law regularly, and it sometimes backfires expensively. (The only reason that it doesn’t backfire more commonly is because enough other people share the lethargy.)
Maik, so closing ?
There is also no reaction at Darktable on this topic, since according to the FAQ confirmation is also possible, we close here. Maik