license

[Bengt Richter]

On Sun, 19 Jan 2003 19:08:31 -0500, "Arthur" <ajs at ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>Tim writes-
>
>>Not for that alone: the PSF license explicitly grants permission to make
>>modifications and distribute derived works. Every OSI-certified license
>>does, since freedom to make derived works is part of the Open Source
>>definition (point 3 at <http://opensource.org/docs/definition.php>). While
>>I am not a lawyer, it was intended that it be *hard* to violate the Python
>>license. The license does require that derivative works include "a brief
>>summary of the changes made to Python 2.3".
>
>But understand, if he was redistributing Python with some notification that
>what one is receiving is modified from Python2.3, there is not an issue.
>
>The facts here -
>
>One has a standard Python installation. That is assumed by the third party
>distribution. And with no warning that it intends to do so, that the 3rd
>party package you download modifies the standard installation, and gives no
>notification that it did so.

I think the standard installation aspect is a red herring. I think anybody has
a right to be upset when someone rearranges the furniture in ones place without
permission, even if rearrager is the supplier of a free chair. It is not about
making mods to the chair, it's about making mods to the arrangement that the
room owner has created.

Personally I am upset at the arrogant assumptions often made by installation programs
(or their creators). It's like an appliance delivery person assuming they have
free run of your house because your let them in for a specific purpose.

I am 110% against programs doing things in my computer without my **informed** consent,
and an overreaching and non-specific click agreement doesn't mollify me at all.
>
>And the modification does not even reverse itself if you uninstall that
>package.
>
>I think that's quite ugly.
>
>And thought someone might agree.
>
I do, and with some feeling. But I don't think it's got much to do with the PSF license.

>its refreshing to know I'm *never* right.
>
Right, including thinking no one else is miffed ;-)

But I think you are barking up the wrong tree if you want to complain in terms of
modifying a PSF product without due notice. The real damage is not there IMO. It's in
disturbing an arrangement that belonged to you as an arrangement, never mind the
components that were arranged. More like a free trial stove deal, where the
deliveryman replaces a cookbook on your kitchen shelf with one from his stove manufacturer,
and then when you decide you don't want the stove, you've lost your original cookbook.

It was not right to replace the cookbook in the first place without asking, but not
because it was part of the standard licensed delivery from your previous stove supplier.
It was wrong because it's your kitchen, and you have a right to expect others to respect
your arrangement of things, and ask if they want to modify it -- even if they think
they know it's best for you.

If the trial installation destroyed something you had, that is a real damage, and there
ought to be a law governing wilful disregard normal expectations, even in the context
of maximal disclaimers. But your mileage may vary, most probably expecially with the extent
of your actual damages. But IANAL.

If you feel strongly, start a we site where people can go to find out beforehand what
software will do before they decide to let an installer run. Also which will want to
'call home' periodically if given a chance. I'd be interested in such a site.

I would think the author of the culprit installer software could be convinced of the
idea that it's not best policy to annoy users, but people tend to get defensive or
feel that you are far more annoying than they, if you vent too much annoyance out front ;-)

Regards,
Bengt Richter