Hideki Yamane <henr...@debian.or.jp> writes: > OBS (https://obsproject.com/) is licensed under GPL-2.
The specific grant throughout much of the code base at <URL:https://github.com/jp9000/obs-studio/> is the standard GPLv2-or-later text: This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. […] I haven't thoroughly searched for different grants in the code base (any prospective maintainer needs to do just such a thorough search to get all the different license conditions, and keep it up to date as it continues to change upstream). > However, it needs to accept license dialog to use it when you start program. > Is it dfsg-free one? I think it would be like click-wrap software. In short: this is DFSG-free, because the grant of license to the recipient is not conditional on their acceptance. They may choose to bypass the dialogue, and their freedoms are unaffected. A considerate distributor would remove that “Accept” demand, and just display the license without demanding anything from the user. Since the distributor is themselves granted full license to modify and redistribute, they already have explicit permission from the copyright holder to remove that demand and redistribute the result. The above grant is unilateral; the recipient has that license in the work, whether they click “Accept” or not. Since the grant tells us we have license under the conditions of the GPLv2 “as published by the Free Software Foundation”, this question is well understood: Can software installers ask people to click to agree to the GPL? If I get some software under the GPL, do I have to agree to anything? Some software packaging systems have a place which requires you to click through or otherwise indicate assent to the terms of the GPL. This is neither required nor forbidden. With or without a click through, the GPL's rules remain the same. Merely agreeing to the GPL doesn't place any obligations on you. You are not required to agree to anything to merely use software which is licensed under the GPL. You only have obligations if you modify or distribute the software. If it really bothers you to click through the GPL, nothing stops you from hacking the GPLed software to bypass this. <URL:https://gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ClickThrough> In other words, clicking “Accept” or not clicking doesn't change the fact the license is granted to the recipient. Any recipient can bypass the requirement, and they still have full license under GPLv2. Any recipient can modify the software in any way, including if they choose to remove the demand to click “Accept”. They can then redistribute that derived work under the same license. What may be causing confusion on this issue is that GPLv2 has text requiring the user be *notified* that they are granted license in the software. GPLv2 §2c states: c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to print an announcement.) There is no requirement to demand the user *acknowledge* this, whether by “Accept” or any other means. -- \ “The conflict between humanists and religionists has always | `\ been one between the torch of enlightenment and the chains of | _o__) enslavement.” —Wole Soyinka, 2014-08-10 | Ben Finney