https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=424679
--- Comment #3 from Chris Morgan <m...@chrismorgan.info> --- Hmm, I wasn’t aware of https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#ClickThrough. Must have forgotten it; I last read that document in 2007 or so. Still, I disagree with its interpretation of the license. The text of the license says that “You are not required to accept this License” and that “The act of running the Program is not restricted”, and clause six states that “You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein”. To me it seems fairly cut and dried that *requiring* acceptance is a material restriction of this nature, regardless of this agreement not imposing any obligations on you, and thus not acceptable. But I should probably take this up with FSF. Within the scope of this project, given that guidance from FSF, closing this WONTFIX or similar makes sense, even if it’s technically straightforward to resolve and would, I think, be mildly worth doing. > After all licensing is not programming, we don't have time to lost with this > kind of details... I have to say this: that’s an attitude that’s liable to get you in a lot of hot water some day. If you license your code in such and such a way, that puts legal responsibilities upon you, even if it’s not programming. I see your reasoning used to justify ignoring copyright and other aspects of the law regularly, and it sometimes backfires expensively. (The only reason that it doesn’t backfire more commonly is because enough other people share the lethargy.) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
