DisplayLink Forum - View Single Post

monyker · 11-10-2016, 11:05 PM

I have a different, but related question. I'm not trying to hijack this thread, but thought my question is so closely related it may be additional useful info to the OP and/or other forum users. Please let me know if I should submit this as a new topic instead.
I'm a systems/network admin for a smallish organization and use the DisplayLink Windows Installer (.msi) package to deploy the drivers/utility to our Windows clients. I was presented with and agreed to the EULA in the process of downloading the msi package.
Our deployment approach (scripting msiexec) works great to deploy the package silently and no EULA is displayed to the end user. My understanding is this is acceptable/normal as I've accepted the terms of the EULA on behalf of the organization.
I used Orca to inspect the package (DisplayLink_Win10RS1.msi) Property table, hoping to solve an unrelated "problem" and happened to notice the value for the EULA_ACCEPTED property is "no." I was surprised as I had in fact accepted the EULA before downloading. And no EULA is ever presented to the end user, based on my testing. Should I generate a transforms with this property set to 'yes', to ensure our users are never prompted to accept the EULA? Can you offer an explanation?

Nate, I'll admit I find the registration process and email verification for access to the Windows Installer packages something of a nuisance. I for one would appreciate it if DisplayLink would make providing that information and email verification optional or stop asking for it altogether. They could still present a EULA before displaying download links. In either case, instead of bundling DisplayLink drivers/software directly in your package, could your package provide basic instructions for manually downloading the DisplayLink Windows Installer packages to a specific location and have your package continue with DisplayLink installation using the packages downloaded by the systems admin? Not as convenient for the systems admin, but at least they are presented with the EULA. Just a thought.

11-10-2016, 11:05 PM	#1
monyker Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2016 Posts: 3	EULA in Redstone MSI I have a different, but related question. I'm not trying to hijack this thread, but thought my question is so closely related it may be additional useful info to the OP and/or other forum users. Please let me know if I should submit this as a new topic instead. I'm a systems/network admin for a smallish organization and use the DisplayLink Windows Installer (.msi) package to deploy the drivers/utility to our Windows clients. I was presented with and agreed to the EULA in the process of downloading the msi package. Our deployment approach (scripting msiexec) works great to deploy the package silently and no EULA is displayed to the end user. My understanding is this is acceptable/normal as I've accepted the terms of the EULA on behalf of the organization. I used Orca to inspect the package (DisplayLink_Win10RS1.msi) Property table, hoping to solve an unrelated "problem" and happened to notice the value for the EULA_ACCEPTED property is "no." I was surprised as I had in fact accepted the EULA before downloading. And no EULA is ever presented to the end user, based on my testing. Should I generate a transforms with this property set to 'yes', to ensure our users are never prompted to accept the EULA? Can you offer an explanation? Nate, I'll admit I find the registration process and email verification for access to the Windows Installer packages something of a nuisance. I for one would appreciate it if DisplayLink would make providing that information and email verification optional or stop asking for it altogether. They could still present a EULA before displaying download links. In either case, instead of bundling DisplayLink drivers/software directly in your package, could your package provide basic instructions for manually downloading the DisplayLink Windows Installer packages to a specific location and have your package continue with DisplayLink installation using the packages downloaded by the systems admin? Not as convenient for the systems admin, but at least they are presented with the EULA. Just a thought.