Bug 64

Summary:	license agreement during installation
Product:	Mageia	Reporter:	AL13N <alien>
Component:	Installer	Assignee:	Ahmad Samir <ahmadsamir3891>
Status:	RESOLVED INVALID	QA Contact:
Severity:	normal
Priority:	Normal	CC:	shikamaru
Version:	Cauldron
Target Milestone:	---
Hardware:	x86_64
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Source RPM:		CVE:
Status comment:

Description AL13N 2011-02-16 23:43:21 CET

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101230 Mandriva Linux/1.9.2.13-0.2mdv2010.2 (2010.2) Firefox/3.6.13
Build Identifier: 

Description of problem:

do we really need a license agreement? can we not skip this, if possible?

Reproducible: 

Steps to Reproduce:

Comment 1 Rémy CLOUARD (shikamaru) 2011-02-18 23:17:58 CET

No I donât think so,

People need to know about their rights and duties about free software. Skipping them is not an option IMHO.

Could you give us a valid reason why this should be skipped ?

CC: (none) => shikamaru

Comment 2 AL13N 2011-02-19 00:00:52 CET

well, not all software we provide is free (eg: non-free)

all packages have license information, so people can look stuff up.

what kind of license agreement is shown anyway? there's alot of opensource licenses...

i felt that since mageia isn't a company, and has no restricted software, we wouldn't need this, and just get rid of a few more clicks for pages noone reads anyway...

if this reason is valid or not... IANAL

Comment 3 Rémy CLOUARD (shikamaru) 2011-02-19 23:57:28 CET

No, the dvd image is supposed to be free only, also, you have to warn people about the risks associated with the installation of the distribution, otherwise people could even sue mageia if something goes wrong and the user has not been warned.

If one decide not to read that itâs his own problem, but we canât skip it for the above reason.

Comment 4 Ahmad Samir 2011-02-20 00:12:31 CET

(In reply to comment #3)
> No, the dvd image is supposed to be free only, also, you have to warn people
> about the risks associated with the installation of the distribution, otherwise
> people could even sue mageia if something goes wrong and the user has not been
> warned.
> 
> If one decide not to read that itâs his own problem, but we canât skip it for
> the above reason.

Yeah.

Status: NEW => RESOLVED
Resolution: (none) => INVALID

Comment 5 AL13N 2011-02-20 22:51:40 CET

ok, good enough for me.

Does all distributions do this? i'm not entirely sure...

( i would argue that they can't sue, because the licenses _are_ there, but instead of having to agree with it, you have to find them yourself... )

Comment 6 Ahmad Samir 2011-02-20 23:12:25 CET

Give me a tarball without clear a clear license and I'll point out a tarball that can't go into the official repos, there's always a License agreement even for GPL.