Re: [ELPA] New package: splash-screen

[Thibaut Verron]

Le dim. 27 sept. 2020 à 12:50, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> a écrit :
>
> > From: Thibaut Verron <thibaut.verron@gmail.com>
> > Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2020 12:34:44 +0200
> > Cc: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>, Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org>,
> >       "Nicolas P. Rougier" <nicolas.rougier@inria.fr>, emacs-devel 
> > <emacs-devel@gnu.org>
> >
> > Of course, I agree that we should not take non-free software's example
> > seriously.
>
> I don't think this distinction is relevant when talking about legal
> issues.  The GPL is not a revolt against the copyright laws, it uses
> those laws to the benefit of the Free Software.  Therefore, relevant
> legal practices, even if used by non-free software, are not to be
> dismissed so easily.

I agree. My point was that some non-free software and services tend to
have EULAs which users would not agree to if they were to read them.
Such software actively discourage users from reading their EULA,
sometimes with a creative interpretation of the law. Your example of
small prints falls into that category.

>
> > > I see all-caps in GUI applications as well.
> >
> > Assuming that you mean free software, do you have examples?
>
> Any program that shows the MIT license will display that part in
> all-caps.  (And, as I wrote above, I don't think whether the software
> is free or not is important here.)

Thanks. It looks like there is a bit of flexibility (for instance,
jquery links to https://tldrlegal.com/license/mit-license which shows
a summary without caps first), but those are good examples to keep in
mind.

>
> > 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.
>
> I never said I'm against asking their counsel.  Please don't treat
> factual corrections of part of what you say to mean that I reject
> _everything_ that you say.  Agreement doesn't have to be total; that's
> a common fallacy ("you are either with us or against us") in this
> divided world nowadays.
>
> > If we deny the fact that several major free software organizations
> > have chosen to display the warranty disclaimer only in their EULA
>
> I didn't deny that, so your arguments should be directed at someone
> else.

Sorry, those were not meant specifically for you. It was my
understanding that the whole discussion about "other software" was
coming from whether there is sufficient reason to ask for renewed
advice.

What I was trying to say was a generic point, that even if Emacs is
not alone in displaying the warranty disclaimer so prominently, in my
opinion there are enough examples of the contrary to justify this
query.