Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 1.5.4

> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, 7 Feb 2008, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> 
> > Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin-Mmb7MZpHnFY@public.gmane.org> writes:
> > 
> > > 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.