Use MUI_PAGE_LICENSE

[JeremyRand]

The current method of showing license information is non-standard. The correct/standard pattern for this in NSIS is to put this line between the MUI_PAGE_WELCOME and MUI_PAGE_DIRECTORY lines:

!insertmacro MUI_PAGE_LICENSE "ncdns_license.txt"

(ncdns_license.txt would presumably contain the text of the GPLv3+, as well as a preamble noting that Namecoin Core and Dnssec-Trigger have their own licenses.)

[hlandau]

I did it this way for a reason. The MUI_PAGE_LICENSE option is for EULAs and constitutes an unnecessary nuisance to the user, as well as using an "I Agree" button to try and insinuate that some act of assent is mandated or can be inferred as having occurred as a result.

The way it's done here is simple and unobtrusive and avoids purporting to bind the user.

[JeremyRand]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Hugo Landau:

I did it this way for a reason. The MUI_PAGE_LICENSE option is for EULAs and constitutes an unnecessary nuisance to the user, as well as using an "I Agree" button to try and insinuate that some act of assent is mandated or can be inferred as having occurred as a result. The way it's done here is simple and unobtrusive and avoids purporting to bind the user.

The case law on how the GPL works is already murky enough (example: US courts aren't even clear on whether GPL is a contract) without doing something weird and nonstandard that doesn't match what most GPL projects do. I do not want to end up in a situation where our code ends up being affected by GPL differently from the rest of the GPL code in the world. I get that you like to integrate activism into random things. I do too. In this case I do not consider it sufficiently safe to risk changing how the GPL applies just in order to make a mostly meaningless political statement. (If you disagree, please find me lawyers in all major jurisdictions where the GPL might be applied, who can point to established case law in aforementioned jurisdictions that demonstrates that doing this doesn't affect how the GPL works. We can then argue about other problems with this approach, e.g. the fact that end users might not know what "GPLv3+" means but would find out if the explicit text of the license were provided.)

…

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJZNSsNAAoJELPy0WV4bWVwe9QP/2BRRvJDcJbZ7jND5tn8K4tJ Pf7sxRxGOdukWWcKRNtxBivKX3jg4eNoa6HOkXC6JxtT4rZmm4C+mPdODIRQUPZs s+jJKV3yW2vIULUX1UtKco/mGQe/4U9feuREU2uh2vwlCJApGu2TrB2YjLf34Df5 +VnSjB387hyHj2I8v/IHi3SMvrnm8/uJMExwUf4xLp8SBZV2mJN1eKcGnPwacYxz dUcFRxIY59hWoldG57EBlsfaeCCQQ9cvKSMuMFrfaV5f5A0pBiyq8DQrQ2iliUk/ VnbUhDU2I60Pvja8eIRHKtdPyqYPkBZuNSmZJeu/J3ROI0P5F593bbFAHL8HBI+S avOvrNi4tgkwp/CrySHHTaX0T5gZRakNIm6p4tf4U7fx3uFsczASPZKsv6aqErt4 tTtosbLw8i1iZIP80Hu+fvIztDMq7q85TRNhuXMHqEbDcCKtraGRVRgDHy1HZ8Ez /rCgfxRWzsMEejuhrSOtk4XD0cON+64Kz86zrPYtVhpd43zz25ZBIC6Or/XN2wF/ dplIkxESKFZcGDaV0mX4R6Y7zf26kucHbFfzO/QTHj+xKNA15XcY9j4mert2rgIb XSD3p9q7TqyCFamzF9M60UVmkU1EDVsp84/FpDB8UJi0hIju9Lu+fQDlHienIZWQ I5XWl50ulgDN72G79ReS =5vrZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[JeremyRand]

Anyway, in an attempt to resolve this disagreement, I asked in #gnu about what the preferred method is.

J
Jeremy_Rand
On an unrelated note, it's not clear to me from https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html what is the preferred method of disclosing the GPL to users of software that has an interactive installer, but is non-interactive once it's installed.
(For example, a Windows service that has an NSIS installer wizard.)
Is the preferred practice to have the installer show the text of the GPL, and make the user click "I agree" before the installer proceeds? Is it sufficient to simply say "This software is covered by GPLv3+" in one of the intro screens of the installer?
A
Anonymous (IRC)
either way is fine Jeremy_Rand[m] - you often see the GPL posed as an "Accept" "Decline" decision but there is really nothing for the user to "agree" with - especially with a binary only
i.e. the GPL places no terms on end-users unless they re-distribute
after the program is installed it should mention something in the "about" or "help" screen if it has one - even just a URL of to the license there
a standard short copyright notice
J
Jeremy_Rand
Anonymous: thanks, makes sense. Is it preferred to show the actual text of the GPL to the user, or is showing a URL sufficient, or is simply saying "GNU GPLv3+" (and figuring the user can Google for that) sufficient?
A
Anonymous (IRC)
in the instaler i would show the entire text
J
Jeremy_Rand
ok
I think that answers my question, thanks for the answer Anonymous
AA
Anonymous (IRC)
and copy the licence file onto the install location
J
Jeremy_Rand
ok

(Log edited to remove irrelevant conversation that happened simultaneously, and to anonymize the username of the person who answered my question.)

So, I'm willing to defer to the GNU folks about this:

1. An "I agree" button is not necessary.
2. The installer should show the full text of the GPLv3+ prior to install.
3. The installer should copy the full text of the GPLv3+ to the install directory.

[JeremyRand]

@hlandau looks like MUI_LICENSEPAGE_BUTTON can be used to replace the "I agree" button text. See https://nsis-dev.github.io/NSIS-Forums/html/t-363070.html . Does that meet your standards?

[JeremyRand]

looks like MUI_LICENSEPAGE_BUTTON can be used to replace the "I agree" button text. See https://nsis-dev.github.io/NSIS-Forums/html/t-363070.html . Does that meet your standards?

@hlandau Ignoring the question of who actually codes the change, is this approach acceptable?

[JeremyRand]

Noteworthy that VLC's Windows installer shows the full text of the GPLv2, with the text "You are now aware of your rights" below the text box that contains the full text. It uses the text "Next" rather than "I agree".