>It would be absurd on a desktop computer if the OS vendor warned you every time
you installed a software package (or at all actually). 

They do that on MS Windows all the time, every time (with a custom license
every time, funn) :-)

>Setting some option "I haved read the disclaimer" in some obscure
config file setting is fine for me if you insist on pestering
non-advanced users.

Sounds good.

How about putting the Maintainer in the Install Confirmation Dialog:

+-[ Install ]------------------------------------
| gcc 4:3.4.4-7osso2
| 5.7 MB
| Maintainer: Debian GCC Maintainers (NOT Nokia)
|
|  [ Install ] [ Details ] [ Cancel ]
+------------------------------------------------

Putting the maintainer in the install dialog is fine with me assuming
there is space.

*** This bug has been confirmed by popular vote. ***

Comment 4 Andre Klapper 2008-10-14 14:40:28 UTC

I don't think this is possible because of legal issues - your device gets
broken because of faulty software and you sue Nokia? ;-)

You could say "Yes, but I disabled it myself" and I could answer "What if
somebody else did on your device?" See...

Most likely a WONTFIX.

Comment 5 Andrew Flegg 2008-10-14 14:50:41 UTC

(In reply to comment #4)
> I don't think this is possible because of legal issues - your device gets
> broken because of faulty software and you sue Nokia? ;-)
> 
> You could say "Yes, but I disabled it myself" and I could answer "What if
> somebody else did on your device?" See...
> 
> Most likely a WONTFIX.

So, why don't I get a nastygram when installing software on my phone? On my
PalmOS device? On my Mac OS X machine? On Ubuntu?

Where on earth is there precedence for such a disclaimer having any legal
standing?

If the argument of "what if somebody else did [it] on your device?" doesn't
hold a lot of water: what if someone else installed a patch hildon-app-mgr
which doesn't ask? And then something breaks your device?

Having this warning occur once - say when extras is enabled and/or when the
first piece of software is installed - is the best halfway house.

This issue should not be closed as WONTFIX until an official statement,
including rationale and existing case law, comes from Nokia Legal. Guessing
what they'll say won't do.

Comment 6 Andre Klapper 2008-10-14 15:28:13 UTC

Andrew: Valid points.
I wonder whether Quim can find out more here and whether this could be
considered for Fremantle (Having a "Do not show this message again" checkbox or
sth like that).

Comment 7 Faheem Pervez 2008-10-15 17:41:55 UTC

Created an attachment (id=975) [details]
Patch to remove nokia legal warning.

This patch removes the Nokia legal warning from the application manager
entirely. No option to remove it, this patch removes it entirely without any
user selectable option to show it again. Because of that, I doubt it's going to
be included in any future release (*if* any action is planned to remove the
message...). I've tested this patch successfully and I've removed the warning
from two places: installing a deb locally & installing a deb from a repo.

This patch is intended for hildon-application-manager_2.1.16 - the version of
hildon-application-manager that is at least installed with diablo 36-5. This
patch was tested sucessfully on a N800 with diablo 36-5.

-qwerty12

Comment 8 Andre Klapper 2008-10-15 20:04:46 UTC

(In reply to comment #7)
> I doubt it's going to be included in any future release

Me too. Having this patch instead with a "Do not show this warning again"
checkbox (and storing this value in gconf) would increase the chance.

Comment 9 Faheem Pervez 2008-10-15 20:18:50 UTC

(In reply to comment #8)
> (In reply to comment #7)
> > I doubt it's going to be included in any future release
> 
> Me too. Having this patch instead with a "Do not show this warning again"
> checkbox (and storing this value in gconf) would increase the chance.
> 

Meh, I doubt it. The message is a way for Nokia to cover themselves and I don't
see them removing it.

I may do another patch where the settings dialog in red-pill mode provides an
option for turning it off. I will not spend extra time in making the value save
in gconf because the hildon-application-manager itself does not use gconf to
store options (Run 'cat /home/user/.osso/hildon-application-manager).

Comment 10 Neil MacLeod 2008-10-16 03:21:53 UTC

> Meh, I doubt it. The message is a way for Nokia to cover themselves and I don't
> see them removing it.
> 

Covering themselves from what, though? Users are used to installing software
without having to acknowledge the risk each time as installing software is
NORMAL. It's such a normal thing to do that they would ignore the Nokia dialog
every time and thus it becomes utterly meaningless (this is the reason other
operating systems don't bother with it - they understand it's pointless,
something Nokia is yet to learn!)

This issue becomes a basic human/computer interface problem and it's not one
that I would expect a lawyer to understand but it is one that shows Nokia in a
bad light at the end of the day (as they're not grasping the basics, even after
all this time). The dialog will be accepted as a matter of course by everyone,
and thus it achieves nothing of significance beyond annoying the user, although
Nokia support _may_ try and use it as an excuse for voiding support to the user
- maybe.

What would be better is to have the dialog disabled on "benign" (ie. harmless)
software (ie. the majority) and for it to be enabled on software that _could_
potentially do harm to a tablet (I dunno lets see... maybe bootmenu as it
messes with initfs). IE. implement the warning dialog on an excpetion basis -
don't ask me every time, just ask me when it's necessary!!!

This process could be controlled through extras-dev/extras - applications
considered "risky" would not be admitted to extras without the "risky" switch
being thrown in order that Nokia's arse is covered, and the user is given a
suitable installation warning when it is appropriate (and not every time).

Anything the user installs from outside of extras is at the users own risk and
has nothing to do with Nokia in the first place so the dialog wouldn't be
needed there either.

This ain't rocket science and other systems don't annoy the user to this extent
so I really don't understand why Nokia lawyers think this is in any way
necessary or desirable. Get better lawyers is all I can think of every time
there's a so-called "legal" problem on this project... this is the 21st
century.

Comment 11 Ryan Abel 2008-10-16 04:05:45 UTC

(In reply to comment #10)
> > Meh, I doubt it. The message is a way for Nokia to cover themselves and I don't
> > see them removing it.
> > 
> 
> What would be better is to have the dialog disabled on "benign" (ie. harmless)
> software (ie. the majority) and for it to be enabled on software that _could_
> potentially do harm to a tablet (I dunno lets see... maybe bootmenu as it
> messes with initfs). IE. implement the warning dialog on an excpetion basis -
> don't ask me every time, just ask me when it's necessary!!!
> 
> This process could be controlled through extras-dev/extras - applications
> considered "risky" would not be admitted to extras without the "risky" switch
> being thrown in order that Nokia's arse is covered, and the user is given a
> suitable installation warning when it is appropriate (and not every time).
> 
> 

Sounds complicated. I'd rather the user just be able to turn it off after the
first viewing and never see it again.

Comment 12 Neil MacLeod 2008-10-16 09:46:58 UTC

> Sounds complicated.

I can't disagree with that.

> I'd rather the user just be able to turn it off after the
> first viewing and never see it again.
> 

So would I, but it sounds too complicated for Nokia. :)

Comment 13 Quim Gil 2008-10-20 12:10:16 UTC

(In reply to comment #6)
> I wonder whether Quim can find out more here and whether this could be
> considered for Fremantle (Having a "Do not show this message again" checkbox or
> sth like that).

I'll ask. Users dislike disclaimers as much as companies dislike liabilities.
But yes, perhaps there are better ways in between.

Comment 14 Quim Gil 2008-10-23 12:44:56 UTC

So the trend is to have less focus in specific downloads for installation and
update and concentrate the focus where it really matters: the repositories. If
the download comes from a "good" repo then off you go. If it comes from
anywhere else then big warnings.

For this to happen some work needs to be done in the Application Manager and
the repository policies, which implies work at many levels (programming, UI,
legal). The target is Harmattan and it is still unclear where is going to be
the step stone in Fremantle. We'll let you know when it's decided.

I have changed the summary since the objective is not to overwhelm users with
unnecessary disclaimers, and there are different potential ways of doing this.

Comment 15 Andrew Flegg 2008-10-26 19:05:04 UTC

Created an attachment (id=998) [details]
Patch against branches/2.1.x to give red-pill disablable legal warning

The attached patch against branches/2.1.x (Diablo's latest version) follows on
from the work Faheem/qwerty12's done (he should get most of the credit).

In Red Pill Settings, there is an additional "Show legal warning" option; and
this is persisted with the other settings to
~/.osso/hildon-application-manager. With this patch, the setting can also be
made by:

    echo 'red-pill-show-legalese 0' >>~/.osso/hildon-application-manager

Once set, the user will not be bothered by the legal warning; however it still
defaults to 'true'.

A better version of this patch would add a "Don't show this again" checkbox to
the legal warning (change necessary in src/util.cc:scare_user_with_legalese)

Comment 16 Andrew Flegg 2008-10-26 21:55:52 UTC

Created an attachment (id=999) [details]
(Better) patch against branches/2.1.x to give red-pill disablable legal warning

qwerty12 pointed out that I had missed out the warning when installing from a
file in the earlier version. Corrected.

Comment 17 Quim Gil 2008-11-26 13:33:58 UTC

Fremantle update: user will see disclaimer when installing a 3rd party
application, but not when upgrading it.

The AM is moving to open development. You are welcome to suggest improvement s
and patches, specially to the Fremantle version.

In the meantime, we will continue figuring out how to simplify more the picture
to basic end users for Harmattan.

<blockquote>
Fremantle update: user will see disclaimer when installing a 3rd party
application, but not when upgrading it.
</blockquote>

Personally I find this solution unsatisfactory. It falls woefully
short of what Linux users have come to expect on the desktop.

<blockquote>
The AM is moving to open development. You are welcome to suggest improvement s
and patches, specially to the Fremantle version.
</blockquote>

This comes off as a hollow invitation in light of the fact that both
were done in this thread and both were more or less brushed aside.

Comment 19 Ryan Abel 2008-11-29 16:37:02 UTC

(In reply to comment #18)
> Personally I find this solution unsatisfactory. It falls woefully
> short of what Linux users have come to expect on the desktop.
> 

Well, get to proposing something better.

We're still a long ways off from Fremantle, and Marius is always open to input
(in fact, Application Manager is now becoming the pilot program for open
development of Nokia open source applications) if you come up with something
that is more agreeable to all parties it will be considered (you'll better your
chances with a patch).[1] Just complaining and calling Nokia disingenuous gets
none of us anywhere productive. . . .

> This comes off as a hollow invitation in light of the fact that both
> were done in this thread and both were more or less brushed aside.
> 

Hardly, everybody involved with those patches knew they wouldn't be acceptable
for Nokia (disabling the warning no ifs, ands, or buts isn't an option), what
it is is an invitation for a solution that's acceptable for all parties, not
one that takes only a single party into consideration.

Anyway, in that direction, would a "Do not show again" checkbox or button be an
acceptable compromise (perhaps with some extra legal boilerplate if it makes
you feel better), perhaps in the settings dialog or available from the warning
dialog itself.

I don't think anybody has an issue with accepting it once, it's accepting it
over, and over, and over again that's the problem (besides, that just makes it
a click-through thing that users automatically ignore--the good and effective
warning is the one that doesn't pop up every 3 seconds), especially when you
start to count the time consumed in minutes and hours instead of seconds. . . .


[1]http://wiki.maemo.org/Task:Improving_the_Application_manager

> Hardly, everybody involved with those patches knew they wouldn't be acceptable
> for Nokia (disabling the warning no ifs, ands, or buts isn't an option), what
> it is is an invitation for a solution that's acceptable for all parties, not
> one that takes only a single party into consideration.

Just because Nokia finds it unreasonable does not make it so.


> Anyway, in that direction, would a "Do not show again" checkbox or button be an
> acceptable compromise (perhaps with some extra legal boilerplate if it makes
> you feel better), perhaps in the settings dialog or available from the warning
> dialog itself.

This is fine with me but I am confused as to what substantial
difference Nokia finds between this and Andrew Flegg's modification.

Comment 21 Eero Tamminen 2008-12-08 19:03:16 UTC

To answer the EULA thing raised in the original bug report, that is up to each
of the packages flinging out EULAs.  Their postinst EULA scripts get the
currently installed SW version, so they can decide whether they could skip
showing the EULA for the new version.  Please file a separate bug for each app
that still does this.


(In reply to comment #5)
> So, why don't I get a nastygram when installing software on my phone?
> On my PalmOS device?

I think the software for these devices comes through some kind of certification
process (i.e. has some basic quality checks).


> On my Mac OS X machine?  On Ubuntu?

These are computers.  Although N8x0 devices are liked by computer savvy people,
they're really intended also for people who might not have a computer at all.
As to Ubuntu, it's own repos have much larger amount and variety of SW than
Maemo (being closer to Debian and x86 and not needing to modify the SW for
smaller screen) so people have less need of using 3rd party repos like Maemo
Extras and they know better what the use of 3rd party repos mean.

On Debian the packages are signed with developers key and the process to
getting accepted as a Developer is pretty long (year(s)) and they need to
demonstrate that they're good&dedicated maintainers.

Maemo is much less strict in this regard.  I think getting rid of the
notification would require some extra guarantees about the software coming out
of extras repository, either through automation or developers going through
additional hoops.  Latter might decrease the number of 3rd party developers, so
automation would be preferrable.  Extras is maintained by the community so this
is up to community (either Nokia or some other community members).

Comment 22 Quim Gil 2009-02-11 10:05:41 UTC

Ville is now dealing directly with disclaimers on installs and upgrades.
Reassigning.

Comment 23 Andre Klapper 2009-07-20 17:27:55 UTC

Current disclaimer in Fremantle is just the explanation and a checkbox "I
understand and agree". I think that's still a bit annoying but acceptable.

(In reply to comment #17)
> Fremantle update: user will see disclaimer when installing a 3rd party
> application, but not when upgrading it.

That makes sense and would have been very nice, but seems to have fallen
through the cracks: updates to already installed third-party packages do
present a disclaimer popup in 1.2009.41-10.

Comment 25 Ryan Abel 2009-10-22 07:12:13 UTC

(In reply to comment #23)
> Current disclaimer in Fremantle is just the explanation and a checkbox "I
> understand and agree". I think that's still a bit annoying but acceptable.
> 

How about we make this checkbox permanent. Having to see it every time you
install software just leads to click through syndrome. Lawyers should get that
people don't read these thing when you shove them in your face 1000 times.

Marking patches of interest to Diablo (Maemo4) community updates, please excuse
the noise.

Comment 27 Andre Klapper 2012-03-24 11:38:47 UTC

The Maemo 5 User Interface and Maemo 5 platform components (e.g. libraries)
used for the N900 are considered stable by Nokia and it seems that there are no
plans for official updates currently, hence nobody plans to work on this
enhancement/wishlist request. 
(And in case you feel like discussing this situation: Nokia Customer Care or
http://talk.maemo.org would be the place to do so as you will not reach Nokia
officials in this community bugtracker - though all of this is really no news.)

Reflecting this status by setting RESOLVED WONTFIX for this
enhancement/wishlist request (see
https://bugs.maemo.org/page.cgi?id=fields.html#status for status explanations).

There is a small chance for issues in those Maemo components that are open
source: Contributed patches could be included and made available in the Maemo 5
Community CSSU updates. 
The Maemo CSSU project is run by a small team of volunteers; see
http://wiki.maemo.org/CSSU for more information.
So in case that you can provide a patch that fixes the reported problem, please
feel encouraged to file a request under
https://bugs.maemo.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=Maemo%205%20Community%20SSU .
Please note: The Maemo CSSU project is not related in any way to Nokia.


( Tag for mass-deleting bugmail: [cleanup20120324] )