227129 - Radio buttons for software agreement agree/disagree broken

Status: VERIFIED FIXED

(Firefox :: Installer, defect)

Description

[Robert Marshall]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031130 Firebird/0.7+
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031130 Firebird/0.7+

When running the installer the user agreement (software licensing agreement)
option should default to the negative option, and require someone to change it
to the positive. Current installer build defaults to positive.

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Download 20031130 FirebirdSetup.exe installer
2. Run installer program

Actual Results:  
When you reach the Software Licensing Agreement page it defaults to "I accept..."

Expected Results:  
This should default to the negative, and require the user to choose the positive
(i.e.: "I do not accept..." should be the default).

Does NOT affect functionality one bit. Its a legaleze issue worth mentioning.

Comment 1

[Mike Connor [:mconnor]]

yeah, its a minor thing, but should be done before the installer appears in a
milestone

Comment 2

[Jon Henry]

Attachment: Proposed patch

Disclaimer: I don't have the ability to build the next-gen installer on this
machine as I do not have access to MSVC++. Therefore this is untested. That
said, to the best of my understanding this patch should sucecssfully make this
trivial change.

Comment 3

[Jon Henry]

Comment on attachment 136619 [details] [diff] [review]
Proposed patch

Asking for review from Ben.

Comment 4

[Jon Henry]

Attachment: Patch v2

Ugh, I'm sorry, I missed the obvious change to the comment. Please disregard
the last patch. These are among the first patches I've ever submitted to an
open source project, so I apologize for these lame newbie mistakes...

Comment 5

[Jon Henry]

Comment on attachment 136620 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch v2

Re-requesting review of the correct patch.

Comment 6

[Ben Goodger (use ben at mozilla dot org for email)]

Why is this a legal issue? We provide both options. Checking the other button
makes the installation more time consuming. Who are we kidding... no one ever
reads these things. We've provided it here, I think that's enough. Seamonkey
does the same thing, places a button at the same physical location that accepts
the agreement. 

Comment 7

[Robert Marshall]

Every commercial software company I have ever been involved with has made it a
habit of making it the negative by default. Sure, nobody probably reads them
(myself included), but the fact that the user has to do a simple keystroke to be
able to install the software is the user's acknowledgement that they accept
whatever the wording states, whether they read it or not. Should a legal issue
ever happen, then the fact that the software did not require someone to
physically choose to accept it could be brought up.

A negative default is the norm in the software industry.

Comment 8

[Ben Goodger (use ben at mozilla dot org for email)]

Bah. 

Comment 9

[Ben Goodger (use ben at mozilla dot org for email)]

After talking with my lawyers, I've decided to take this for now. I think an
"Accept" button would be better though... will look at that later. 

Comment 10

[Ben Goodger (use ben at mozilla dot org for email)]

Checked in. 

Comment 11

[Robert Marshall]

Installed with new 20031216 installer build. While the default has been changed
to the "I do not accept...", the Next button is available, and you can continue
with the installation without having to change the negative default to the "I
accept..." positive choice. The Next button should be grayed out until the
option is changed to the "I accept..." option.

Comment 12

[Ben Goodger (use ben at mozilla dot org for email)]

Fixed, branch and trunk. The reason this wasn't working is that the tab order in
the dialog resource was wrong, and the ACCEPT radio was being focused when the
dialog initialized, thus causing the WM_COMMAND to be sent for some reason. 

Comment 13

[Ben Goodger (use ben at mozilla dot org for email)]

No, not fixed. God damnit. 

Windows blows. CENSORED. 

-> 0.9

Comment 14

[David Tenser [:djst]]

Just for the record, I've never defaulted to "I do not accept" in my Texturizer
installer. It's still the user's choice. Nevermind though, since it's already
"fixed".

Comment 15

[Robert Marshall]

Just installed what's labeled as the latest installer build. When it gets to the
EULA, both the "I accept..." and I do not accept..." radio buttons are selected,
and the OK button is grayed out. If I click on the "I accept..." radio button
then the OK button is available, though both radio buttons look like they are
chosen (i.e.: the black dots are there!). 

I can bounce back and forth between the two radio buttons, and the OK button
matches whichever one that I clicked on, so the button is interlocked properly.
Its just that both options look like they are chosen.

What's strange is that the version info still says 20031216 build, and the logo
in the HELP|ABOUT has changed. 

Here's the complete build designation in the browswer:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031216
Firebird/0.7+

Comment 16

[Pete Boyd]

regarding the legality of this issue, I only vaguely remember the details but
there was something in a US court in recent years whereby it was
discussed/decided/something that users weren't bound by the terms of the licence
if they just clicked a default 'ok' button, which is why licences with some
software, such as OpenOffice, gets you to scroll thru the text before the 'i
agree' button becomes usable.

I also read somewhere else, and remember only vaguely, that if users don't agree
with the GPL then they're instead bound by Copyright law, which is of-course
more restrictive than the GPL so we don't lose anything in that situation.
Where we do have the potential to lose out is with people changing/distributing
the code and I think perhaps the implication was that such people are faced with
acknowlwedging the licence agreement at a different point than this one included
with the installer

Comment 17

[Jon Henry]

Comment on attachment 136620 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch v2

Canceling my review request based on the fact that this doesn't work...

Comment 18

[Zibi Braniecki [:zbraniecki][:gandalf]]

Shouldn't TM be Firebird0.8 since it's blocker?

Comment 19

[timeless]

[e-mail]: that's nice, except mozilla isn't a GPL product.

Comment 20

[alanjstr]

*** Bug 231136 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 21

[alanjstr]

Defaults to Reject, but bug in comment 15 is there.

Should probably change summary.

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7a) Gecko/20040120
Firebird/0.7+

Comment 22

[Michael Lefevre]

changing flags per Ben's comment on IRC (and comment 13 when he should have
changed it anyway :)

Comment 23

[Bill Mason]

Resummarizing bug to try and stop the dups appearing on this remaining issue.

Comment 24

[Bill Mason]

*** Bug 236810 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 25

[Johnny Stenback (:jst)]

Attachment: Set WS_GROUP on the first radio button to make it initialize the group.

Comment 26

[Johnny Stenback (:jst)]

I just checked in the attached patch, are we done here, should this be marked FIXED?

Comment 27

[Robert Marshall]

Just tested with the 0204 installer build, and it works fine!!

Comment 28

[Robert Marshall]

make that the April 2, 2004 installer build!
-----------------------

Just tested with the 0204 installer build, and it works fine!!(In reply to
comment #27)
> Just tested with the 0204 installer build, and it works fine!!