forces user to agree with disclaimer before running
Hi,
I'm not a lawyer, and you must understand that before continuing reading this
message. :-)
The title should be "forces user to agree with disclaimer", not "forces user to
agree to terms of usage".
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 11:50:28PM +0200, Leo 'costela' Antunes wrote:
> In the version of the transmission bittorrent client in wheezy there is
> a disclaimer popup displayed on the first run, basically telling the
> user "your responsibility", but with an "agree" button which may make it
> look more like an additional license.
>
> My questions:
>
> 1) does this qualify as breaking point 7 of the DFSG? (or, in fact, any
> other point I may have overlooked).
I see no "breaking point 7 of the DFSG" in the disclaimer quoted by Paul.
> If yes, would renaming the button to
> something like "I understand" improve the situation?
It would still be a disclaimer.
>
> 2) upstream probably does this to try and shift liability. Obviously
> IANAL, but does this even make sense?
Yes, the upstream author seems to feel more comfortable with the disclaimer in
the popup.
> Do we have any precedence to
> convince upstream to drop this annoyance
The license allows Debian (or anyone) to remove the popup without additional
permission from upstream.
> on the grounds that it's
> useless? (and here I'm hoping it *is* useless)
It's not useless to upstream, but Debian can make its own choices on this.
>
> 3) this may be a question for -devel, but do we have a public stand on
> click-through disclaimers or even EULAs?
I suggest to look at such click-through disclaimers and EULAs case by case.
> Somewhere we could point
> upstream for the pros/cons/consequences of such things?
The license allows Debian (or anyone) to remove the popup without additional
permission from upstream.
In this case I prefer to keep the popup if it is shown only once. I'm not
suggesting to make that a general rule in Debian.
Regards,
Bart Martens
Reply to: