]> 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