[ricksterto]

Driver Sweeper 3.0 by Phyxion (phyxion.net/item/driver-sweeper.html) installs OpenCandy without notification or inclusion in their TOC.

[marko]

ricksterto, thanks for taking the time to report this mate, but I've tried the installer myself and they do appear to list OpenCandy in their terms, look for Section C on the install license agreement

[James (Jim) Hillier]

Marko - Downloaded and installed Driver Sweeper, this is what I found:

Zero mention of OpenCandy on the home site.
Zero mention of OpenCandy during install, no choices to opt out.

The only mention of OpenCandy anywhere is in the EULA, which most people would not bother to read through.

I agree with ricksterto on this one. IMO, this constitutes bundling covertly, just mentioning in the EULA is nowhere near good enough.

A rethink might be in order, perhaps.

Cheers...Jim

[marko]

Jim, OpenCandy is the means by which developers are able to offer an add-on, OC isn't an add-on itself.

In the same way as an add-on toolbar would have it's code integrated into an installer, OC code exist's in the installer - the matter of when and how we ban it comes if the user doesn't have the choice of whether to decline the actual installation of the add-on or not. If no opt-out existed, it would be banned. If the add-on was considered dangerous, it would be banned and in the case of OpenCandy, the first recommendation they make which is proven to be dangerous would result in their entire network being banned by us.

As for no mention on developers websites, well, they basically won't do this, most don't do it with any other addition to their installers so the inclusion of OC probably won't be any different - in an ideal world they would all be transparent but alas you and I both know it's not about to happen and if I took it upon myself to start removing everything I had moral doubts about we'd probably be left with a handful of downloads!.

Instead, I've started making a note of those downloads which contain OpenCandy and any other additions so we can draw people's attentions to it and ultimately the end-user has the final decision on whether they want to install the software or not - I'm just including a simple note in the description at the moment but after the upgrade I'll figure something a little more prominent
Cheers
Mark

[James (Jim) Hillier]

Okay Marko....sounds good.

[ricksterto]

The reason I reported this was pretty simple - I installed on a Windows 7 x86 machine and got the EULA and went reading. I then installed it on a Win 7 x64 machine and did not receive any EULA notice window.

I reported this to the author and the response was disappointing - basically it was a "don't care....I need to get paid so whether OC shows up isn't a priority". Basically it was a "can you see why it didn't show up and let the author know so he can fix it!

So....$$$$$$$$$$$$

If someone wants to call their product freeware, then it should be free. If they want to pack other garbage in to make $0.05 per month, call it adware.

[marko]

Can share your frustrations rick, it's a constant battle in the ever changing world of freeware - was dissapointing that you didn't receive a better response from the developer but hey, it takes allsorts I guess!

[James (Jim) Hillier]

Hey Rick - I installed Driver Sweeper to a Win7 64-bit machine and I definitely got the EULA. So not sure what could have happened with you mate.