Re: problems installing xquartz
Re: problems installing xquartz
- Subject: Re: problems installing xquartz
- From: "James K. Lowden" <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 21:49:29 -0500
On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 12:11:09 -0500
Brandon Allbery <email@hidden> wrote:
> > On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 15:34:09 -0800
> > Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia <email@hidden> wrote:
> >
> > > > X11 is open source software, so are all those license agreements
> > > > really necessary?
> > >
> > > Yes, OSS has licenses.
> >
> > Yes, OSS has licenses, but not End User License Agreements. No open
> >
>
> I think Jeremy does not get to dictate to the team maintaining the
> installer framework that his package should get to skip the license
> step.
I never intended my statements as an attack on the good Jeremy
Huddleston or the others at Apple who make X on OS X possible. I'm
sorry I left you with that impression. (By the way, I chimed
in later. I wouldn't want the OP tagged with my words by mistake.)
> maybe your use case is *not* a priority with Apple's management
I'm sure it's not. :-) The question was, "are all those agreements
necessary". The answer is No. But I wouldn't try to get Apple to
change how it deals with this any more than I'd expect an aircraft
carrier to alter course if a bird lands on the starboard bow.
I responded because Jeremy equated (or so it seemed to me) licenses of
two very different kinds. OSS licenses grant rights to the
user that would otherwise be retained by author. EULAs typically
*restrict* user rights even further than copyright does, prohibiting
the user from e.g. "decompiling" or, sometimes, from publishing
performance test results.
Unlike such EULAs, the X/MIT license places no burden on the user as a
condition for *installing* the software. For distributing, yes, of
course. But why should anyone have to agree not to remove the
copyright from the source code when redistributing it as a step toward
simply installing it?
I know there have been a few court cases upholding the validity of
"shrinkwrap" licenses, but there's never been a case where copyright
protection -- and the license depending on it -- were invalidated for
lack of active assent. The law applies to the code whether or not the
user agrees. Ergo "I agree" is only a nuisance.
Acknowledged, over the last decade many free software projects have
introduced "I agree" buttons to their installers, even though the thing
being agreed to is the GPL. ISTR Ubuntu is one. I'm baffled as to
why, except as slavish adherence to fashion. Like you, though, I'm
pretty sure it's not malice.
--jkl
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
X11-users mailing list (email@hidden)
This email sent to email@hidden