Michaël Grünewald wrote:
> Matt Gushee <mgushee@havenrock.com> writes:

>>I believe very strongly in informed consent in all areas of life. That
>>means, for example, that when someone accepts a software license, they
>>should know what they just agreed to. And unfortunately, most software
>>licenses never get read; they're just too damn long and complex. If
>>you're an open source developer, you have probably read the GPL, but I'd
>>wager most end users haven't. And you have undoubtedly also used
>>Microsoft products. Have you ever read their EULA in its entirety? I bet
>>you haven't.
> 
> 
> Oh, these poor little users that want to use software without any
> effort, that's so lovely ...
> 
> Any computer user must have read and understood the licence (or, less
> bad than nothing, a digest) of the software it uses. This is pointless
> to care of the ones that do not. Even if they come from the whole
> majority, faults must not be agreed but fighted against.

Besides, whether one reads it or not, one is bound by it. If 
one uses software licenced under conditions one *would not* 
agree upon, had one read the licence, it is his or her 
problem, not the developer's.

Alex

-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners