Installer should not require acceptance of the GPL!

[Captain Chaos]

Hi everyone,

I use Calibre regularly and I love it. In fact I just donated to show my love . I mostly use it on Linux, but recently I had to install it on Windows, and was disappointed to see that the Windows installer requires you to accept the GPL. Unfortunately I see this a lot with open source software, but it is unnecessary and wrong:

The GPL is not a EULA!

The GPL is a copyright licence, not an End User License Agreement. It governs the terms under which you may redistribute the program, and it applies automatically, whether you accept it or not. It does not govern usage of the program, and in fact the licence itself (which the installer makes you accept) states that acceptance is not necessary to use the program:

"9. Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies.

You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program. Ancillary propagation of a covered work occurring solely as a consequence of using peer-to-peer transmission to receive a copy likewise does not require acceptance. However, nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate or modify any covered work. These actions infringe copyright if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or propagating a covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so."

You may say that it isn't such a big deal to make people unnecessarily accept licences, but I don't like the way it makes open source software similar to proprietary, closed source software which does make you agree to draconian usage licences!

I just wanted to point this out to the developers. Hopefully they will change the installer so that acceptance of the GPL is no longer required to install the program. It really isn't necessary to present the GPL at all when the program is installed, as long as it is prominently mentioned in the documentation and the credits and/or "about" screen. If you feel like you must show the GPL (perhaps to increase awareness of it, I don't know), at least make it an advisory screen only, and don't require people to accept it before they can continue!

</pet peeve>

Sorry for the rant, and please keep up your excellent work!

[Starson17]

Originally Posted by Captain Chaos

the Windows installer requires you to accept the GPL. Unfortunately I see this a lot with open source software, but it is unnecessary and wrong

It's unnecessary, but requiring acceptance is harmless and somewhat beneficial. The GPL has nothing in it that applies to the end user, so accepting it imposes no obligations on the end user. However, by displaying it, the end user is advised of when it applies, what action will cause it to apply to him and of his obligations if he redistributes it - particularly if he modifies it before redistribution. I don't see that as bad or "wrong." How will the user know when it applies if he isn't told?

The GPL is not a EULA!
The GPL is a copyright licence, not an End User License Agreement. It governs the terms under which you may redistribute the program, and it applies automatically, whether you accept it or not.

All agreements and licenses, including the GPL, need to be accepted to apply. Acceptance is indicated by "modifying or propagating a covered work." It's quite reasonable for Kovid to tell the user that he will be deemed to have accepted the GPL if he does either.

You may say that it isn't such a big deal to make people unnecessarily accept licences, but I don't like the way it makes open source software similar to proprietary, closed source software which does make you agree to draconian usage licences!

I agree that requiring acceptance is annoyingly similar to the way proprietary, closed source software requires acceptance of an EULA. I suppose one could make the installer say 'You may proceed without accepting this license if you do not "modify or propagate" this work,' then allow it to go forward even if the acceptance box is not checked, but that might not even be possible with the way the Windows installer is set up. I doubt it's worth the bother to program it, even if it's possible to do.

[Captain Chaos]

Originally Posted by Starson17

It's unnecessary, but requiring acceptance is harmless and somewhat beneficial. The GPL has nothing in it that applies to the end user, so accepting it imposes no obligations on the end user. However, by displaying it, the end user is advised of when it applies, what action will cause it to apply to him and of his obligations if he redistributes it - particularly if he modifies it before redistribution. I don't see that as bad or "wrong." How will the user know when it applies if he isn't told?

It's not the displaying I object to (much), it's the mandatory "acceptance" of it.

It is wrong in the sense that "acceptance" has no meaning in the case of the GPL (or any other copyright licence). Whether you "accept" it or not, you are still bound by it, so what's the point in asking for a meaningless and superfluous "acceptance" of something when it makes no difference?

In other words: whether you "accept" the GPL or not, you are always allowed to use the program, and you are always bound by the terms of the GPL when you redistribute the program. So the choice is meaningless, and it seems to me that by default we should not have to do meaningless things.

You could even make the point that by requiring acceptance of the GPL you are actually violating the GPL, since the GPL itself states that acceptance is not required to be allowed to use the program. I'm not sure if that argument flies though, since the author himself isn't bound by the GPL.

But what is true is that it is unfair and unnecessarily restrictive not to allow the installation to proceed if you don't "accept" the GPL, since even if you don't "accept" it, you are still allowed to use the program! If you don't agree with the terms of the GPL it just means that you can't redistribute it.

Originally Posted by Starson17

but that might not even be possible with the way the Windows installer is set up.

I know it's possible; I've seen plenty of (.msi) installers that present the GPL (or some other copyright license) to you with a simple Next button, instead of a checkbox you have to check first. It would be a pretty poor installer framework if it didn't allow for something as basic as that!

Originally Posted by Starson17

I doubt it's worth the bother to program it, even if it's possible to do.

Well, you say you agree with me that it's annoying. I'm sure it would be very easy to change; I imagine it's just a fairly trivial change in an installer script somewhere. So why not make the change if it costs so little and removes a legitimate annoyance?

I'd even be willing to do it myself, if someone will point me in the right direction!

[Starson17]

Originally Posted by Captain Chaos

It's not the displaying I object to (much), it's the mandatory "acceptance" of it.

I understand that. My point is that acceptance imposes no obligations on end users - only on those who modify or redistribute it. It may bother you to have to click that option. It doesn't bother me. Of course, I do modify it and redistribute it (through Kovid), so it applies to me.

If you want this changed, you can post an enhancement request or tackle it yourself. Changing the installation process is a bit trickier than changing the calibre code.

[kovidgoyal]

Legal hair splitting.

Just for fun:

Since calibre is its own development environment, by installing calibre you are gaining the ability to modify it, not just use it. And in order to modify it, you must abide by the terms of the GPL, quoting section 9 of the GPL

You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or
run a copy of the Program. Ancillary propagation of a covered work
occurring solely as a consequence of using peer-to-peer transmission
to receive a copy likewise does not require acceptance. However,
nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate or
modify any covered work. These actions infringe copyright if you do
not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or propagating a
covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so.

[kovidgoyal]

Furthermore, I absolutely detest the whole concept of "use anything implies you automatically accept its license".

[Starson17]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

Since calibre is its own development environment, by installing calibre you are gaining the ability to modify it, not just use it. And in order to modify it, you must abide by the terms of the GPL, quoting section 9 of the GPL
...
Furthermore, I absolutely detest the whole concept of "use anything implies you automatically accept its license".

The GPL is designed so that a developer can use it and let his end users run the program without actually agreeing to the GPL. If a developer wants to use it that way and rely on the terms that say "if you modify or distribute, such use constitutes acceptance of the GPL" - that's fine. He's free to do that.

However, that does not mean that a developer is prohibited from requiring all users to accept the GPL - including those who merely run the program and those who want to modify or redistribute it.

Yes, it's legal hair splitting as "acceptance" by an end user imposes no obligations, but I agree with Kovid's comment above. I hate the "use indicates your acceptance" concept. I prefer seeing the terms of the license up front. Now you know. The GPL does impose obligations on many users who go beyond merely running the program, so it makes sense to display the GPL. I think it makes sense even though the system for displaying it annoys some who see similarities to the system used for displaying/imposing EULAs (that may have onerous terms).

[Captain Chaos]

Again, I don't mind the GPL being displayed up front, as you rightly point out there are legitimate reasons to do that.

I object to having to "accept" it before being allowed to install the program. It would be trivial to just display it, with no checkbox and an enabled "next" button (like many open source programs do), and an introduction like "please be aware that if you modify or redistribute this program you are bound by the terms of the GPL licence, displayed below".

And I don't agree that this is legal hair splitting. The entire concept of "accepting" the GPL is meaningless, and requiring people to do it is silly. As the GPL points out itself, acceptance of it is not required to be allowed to use the program, and even if you don't "accept" it, you are still bound by it!

The GPL (and other copyright licences) are not examples of the kind of "use indicates your acceptance" licences that Kovid objects to. The concept of "acceptance" does not apply. It's not a contract (which a EULA is), that requires the acceptance of all parties to be valid. Whether or not you check that checkbox, and whether or not you use the program, makes no difference whatsoever to your legal rights to use, modify and/or redistribute the program...

[Captain Chaos]

Originally Posted by Starson17

Of course, I do modify it and redistribute it (through Kovid), so it applies to me.

Why, what is your role exactly? Do you maintain the Windows version and/or wrap it in a Windows installer?

Originally Posted by Starson17

If you want this changed, you can post an enhancement request or tackle it yourself. Changing the installation process is a bit trickier than changing the calibre code.

I wouldn't mind tackling it myself, if possible. Can you give me a few pointers as to where to start looking in the code?

[Starson17]

Originally Posted by Captain Chaos

Why, what is your role exactly?

Like many others, I've contributed to the Calibre project by writing some tiny bits of code (Merge, Automerge, recipes, etc.) that Kovid has incorporated. All code submitted is licensed under the GPL.

I wouldn't mind tackling it myself, if possible. Can you give me a few pointers as to where to start looking in the code?

Sorry, but I can't help on that. The installer code is handled by Kovid. Once installed, it's easy to begin modifying Calibre code, but the installation code is not something I know anything about. Perhaps I misinterpreted Kovid's response, but I took it to mean he prefers to keep it as it is now.

[Captain Chaos]

Originally Posted by Starson17

Sorry, but I can't help on that. The installer code is handled by Kovid. Once installed, it's easy to begin modifying Calibre code, but the installation code is not something I know anything about. Perhaps I misinterpreted Kovid's response, but I took it to mean he prefers to keep it as it is now.

I read it as that he wants to display the GPL up front, but that he thinks whether or not it should be required to "accept" it is legal hair splitting.

Kovid, is that right? Would you accept a patch that would remove the checkbox, so that the GPL is displayed during the installation, along with a text explaining that if you modify or redistribute the program you are bound to it, but without having to "accept" it before continuing the installation?

[kovidgoyal]

Again, by installing calibre you gain the ability to not just use it, but also modify it. Therefore, the GPL's copyright clauses are not the only ones applicable. If you modify it you must abide by the terms of the GPL, and therefore accepting the GPL is necessary. If you feel that you want to modify it but cannot abide by its terms, then do not accept the GPL and do not install it.

So no, I will not accept a patch to remove the checkbox.

[Captain Chaos]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

Again, by installing calibre you gain the ability to not just use it, but also modify it. Therefore, the GPL's copyright clauses are not the only ones applicable. If you modify it you must abide by the terms of the GPL, and therefore accepting the GPL is necessary. If you feel that you want to modify it but cannot abide by its terms, then do not accept the GPL and do not install it.

So no, I will not accept a patch to remove the checkbox.

You clearly misunderstand the nature of copyright licences like the GPL and don't appreciate the difference between a copyright licence and a contract (like a EULA), so you think you are gaining some kind of protection or advantage by making people check a checkbox. Whereas in reality it is completely meaningless and makes no difference to the legal position of anyone, you or the user. All it does is make people jump through unnecessary hoops, and unfairly deny people who don't agree with the GPL the possibility to use the program.

Contrary to what you say, it is entirely permissible for someone to disagree with the GPL, and still legally use the program. If they redistribute the program in violation of the GPL, you can sue them, even if they have not "accepted" the GPL.

In fact, even if someone downloads your program, unpacks it without using the installer (so they don't have to "accept" the GPL), changes it and redistributes those changes in violation of the GPL, you can still sue them, even thought they have not "accepted" the GPL. The GPL applies to them whether they like it or not, because (like it says itself) it is the only thing granting them the right to redistribute, and it places conditions on that redistribution.

Having a checkbox there does not offer you any additional protection or other advantage. It's completely meaningless, empty, null and void. But if despite all that you insist on having a useless and unfair hurdle to installing your program then that is of course your prerogative and I'll have to accept it.

Pity! At least I tried.

[kovidgoyal]

You clearly dont understand the difference between "use" and "modify". Makes me particularly glad I have that checkbox.

[Captain Chaos]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

You clearly dont understand the difference between "use" and "modify". Makes me particularly glad I have that checkbox.

I understand the difference perfectly. The GPL has nothing whatsoever to do with "using" your program. It doesn't have anything to do with "modifying" it either, as long as I don't redistribute the changes (even if I check the checkbox! It's not a magic checkbox that changes the terms of the GPL when I click it...). Only when I "redistribute" your program (the GPL calls it "conveying") am I bound by the terms of the GPL, and I am always bound by the terms of the GPL when I redistribute your program, regardless of whether I have checked any checkboxes.

Let's try it this way: what do you think you are preventing me from doing (legally), by having that checkbox, which I would not be prevented from doing (legally) if it had not been there?