> I've been seeing an increasing number of posts about how accepting GPL terms in an installer doesn't make much sense; it tells end users that the software is provided as-is, and that they can get the source code if they want: it doesn't entail anything requiring accepting license terms until you fork the project and work with /modify the source code.

https://opensource.stackexchange.com/q/2865/575

Section 9 is rather explicit:

> Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies.

GPL is "ac