Re: [ELPA] New package: splash-screen

[Thibaut Verron]

> > I don't agree that it's a tangent. Emacs shows it "first thing you
> > see", in all caps. Other software require either clicking one's way to
> > the EULA, or requesting this info with --version.
>
> Some software does what you describe.  Others display the EULA
> _first_, and won't even let you see the real program's display until
> and unless you click on "agree".  (Still others are even nastier: they
> show in small print, or momentarily display, something to the effect
> that "by using this you agree to ...".)

For the record, I was only looking at examples within free software.

It is my impression that most non-free software show and request
approval of the EULA at the time of installing.

Of course, I agree that we should not take non-free software's example
seriously. The question is not whether we should deceive the users (we
shouldn't), it's whether showing this information so prominently to
users who are not asking for it is necessary.

> > And software which display it outside of a terminal tend to follow
> > standard typographical practices when doing so. (Yes, bold is also
> > discouraged as a marker of emphasis, but it is very commonly used for
> > that purpose.)
>
> I see all-caps in GUI applications as well.

Assuming that you mean free software, do you have examples?

> Sure, why not?  But let's not maintain the position that Emacs is the
> odd one out here; it's not.

It might not be alone (Screen is another example), but so far it seems
far from being a majority. Even more so if we restrict to GUI
applications.

A lot of the discussion so far has been whether it is worth it to ask
the FSF's counsel for updated advice, valid in the ecosystem and legal
environment of 2020.

If we deny the fact that several major free software organizations
have chosen to display the warranty disclaimer only in their EULA, and
(pending on examples) with friendlier typography than all-caps, yes,
there is indeed little reason for asking for that update.