06-01-2011, 08:43 AM | #1 |
Junior Member
Posts: 9
Karma: 50322
Join Date: Jun 2011
Device: BeBook One
|
Installer should not require acceptance of the GPL!
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! |
06-01-2011, 11:08 AM | #2 | |||
Wizard
Posts: 4,004
Karma: 177841
Join Date: Dec 2009
Device: WinMo: IPAQ; Android: HTC HD2, Archos 7o; Java:Gravity T
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
Advert | |
|
06-01-2011, 11:52 AM | #3 | |||
Junior Member
Posts: 9
Karma: 50322
Join Date: Jun 2011
Device: BeBook One
|
Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
I'd even be willing to do it myself, if someone will point me in the right direction! |
|||
06-01-2011, 04:59 PM | #4 | |
Wizard
Posts: 4,004
Karma: 177841
Join Date: Dec 2009
Device: WinMo: IPAQ; Android: HTC HD2, Archos 7o; Java:Gravity T
|
Quote:
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. |
|
06-01-2011, 05:00 PM | #5 | |
creator of calibre
Posts: 43,852
Karma: 22666666
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Mumbai, India
Device: Various
|
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 Quote:
Last edited by kovidgoyal; 06-01-2011 at 05:16 PM. |
|
Advert | |
|
06-01-2011, 05:03 PM | #6 |
creator of calibre
Posts: 43,852
Karma: 22666666
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Mumbai, India
Device: Various
|
Furthermore, I absolutely detest the whole concept of "use anything implies you automatically accept its license".
|
06-02-2011, 11:25 AM | #7 | |
Wizard
Posts: 4,004
Karma: 177841
Join Date: Dec 2009
Device: WinMo: IPAQ; Android: HTC HD2, Archos 7o; Java:Gravity T
|
Quote:
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). |
|
06-02-2011, 01:03 PM | #8 |
Junior Member
Posts: 9
Karma: 50322
Join Date: Jun 2011
Device: BeBook One
|
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... |
06-02-2011, 01:07 PM | #9 | |
Junior Member
Posts: 9
Karma: 50322
Join Date: Jun 2011
Device: BeBook One
|
Quote:
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? |
|
06-02-2011, 01:29 PM | #10 | |
Wizard
Posts: 4,004
Karma: 177841
Join Date: Dec 2009
Device: WinMo: IPAQ; Android: HTC HD2, Archos 7o; Java:Gravity T
|
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.
Quote:
|
|
06-02-2011, 01:36 PM | #11 | |
Junior Member
Posts: 9
Karma: 50322
Join Date: Jun 2011
Device: BeBook One
|
Quote:
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? |
|
06-02-2011, 01:49 PM | #12 |
creator of calibre
Posts: 43,852
Karma: 22666666
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Mumbai, India
Device: Various
|
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. |
06-02-2011, 02:27 PM | #13 | |
Junior Member
Posts: 9
Karma: 50322
Join Date: Jun 2011
Device: BeBook One
|
Quote:
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. |
|
06-02-2011, 02:48 PM | #14 |
creator of calibre
Posts: 43,852
Karma: 22666666
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Mumbai, India
Device: Various
|
You clearly dont understand the difference between "use" and "modify". Makes me particularly glad I have that checkbox.
|
06-02-2011, 02:59 PM | #15 | |
Junior Member
Posts: 9
Karma: 50322
Join Date: Jun 2011
Device: BeBook One
|
Quote:
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? |
|
Tags |
gpl eula installation |
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
GPL violation? | rfog | Gen3 Developer's Corner | 203 | 08-22-2012 03:46 PM |
e-Readers that don't require ISBN's | kateharp | Writers' Corner | 31 | 02-10-2011 02:12 PM |
Mainstream acceptance + Gauntlet | acemccloudxx | Calibre | 1 | 02-23-2010 11:56 AM |
NYT article: audio books gaining acceptance | Laurens | News | 5 | 02-13-2009 09:44 AM |
Slashdot on the e-book and its slow acceptance | Alexander Turcic | News | 6 | 03-13-2006 06:14 PM |