Hacker News Reader

Comment by qrmn | Hacker News Reader

100% scummy. Question is, what do we do about it?

I wonder... Is bundling adware installers with GPL software a violation of the GPL? (If not, should it be? v2?/v3?) Where's the installer's source? It wraps it in one linked executable file and presents itself as an installer for it, so I am not clear that any "mere aggregation" defence would hold?

There's also a reasonable argument that this brings the official project into disrepute: The GIMP may not be trademarked, but would it have to be?

Firefox, of course, is trademarked. I dearly hope they've never wrapped Firefox installers with adware, because Mozilla would not like that.

View on HN

I would assume that a non-GPL installer for GPL software would be fine, because it doesn't actually run the software, just installs it as a set of files (If it does run the program, generally it doesn't interact with it). I would equate it to using something like GNU 'indent' on proprietary software - I doubt using a GPL program to modify data would cause that data to have to be under the GPL or any other license.

What is very possible is that if they integrated their installer into GIMP's installer (Since GIMP already has it's own installer), GIMP's installer is GPL so their modification would be a GPL violation unless they make the code available. If all their installer does is run GIMP's installer though, then there's no violation AFAIK.

They could just make the code available for the installer.

It's not as if an installer is software worth protecting via copyright in 2015.

> I wonder... Is bundling adware installers with GPL software a violation of the GPL? (If not, should it be? v2?/v3?)

I would assume that adding in stipulations like this would actually be more of a hinderance. Who decides what is "crapware" vs legit software? I can see use cases where you would want an installer to install more than just 1 GPL app (ninite?) and I'm sure it has further implications...

The easy solution is that everything not required by the software being installed must be opt in. You can bundle, but it must be opt in.

That doesn't actually solve the ambiguity. It just shifts it elsewhere.

Unfortunately this would break the idea of Linux distributions listing optional add-ons as dependencies of a package to make things easier for the user.

If this feature is abused enough to warrant review by whomever currently keeps download sites from just automatically installing the software (instead of their 'i'm technically not touching you' opt out crap) for any individual case, that case will feel the wrath of whatever banhammer the powers that be wield.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com