Quote:
Originally Posted by Starson17
I don't want to be argumentative, but you are the one who doesn't understand this. A copyright license is just a specific type of contract. An EULA and the GPL are both contracts and copyright licenses. There's no real difference in what they are. The difference lies in who they apply to and in the obligations imposed.
|
This right here nicely demonstrates the problem you and Kovid are having.
A copyright licence is
not a contract! There is a
fundamental difference in what they are! That's the whole point of this discussion.
A EULA (End User Licence Agreement) is a contract between the user and the author of the program. Being a contract, it is only valid if both parties have agreed to it. That's why you have to click a checkbox to indicate your agreement to the contract. This is a called a "click-wrap" licence.
Sometimes you accept the contract simply by opening the shrink-wrap around the packet containing the CD or DVD, warrantee card, etc.. This is called a shrink-wrap licence.
And sometimes your acceptance of the contract's terms is indicated solely by using the program (you would have to be warned of this in advance for this to be valid), to which Kovid rightly objects. I don't like it either, nor do I like click-wrap or shrink-wrap licences.
The fundamental underlying principle in all these cases is that you are entering into a contract with the author. Being a contract, it can contain anything the author wants. He can limit your
usage of the program in any way he likes. By accepting the contract's terms you are agreeing to be bound by it and do anything it says, even if it says you have to transfer your life's savings to he author.
I hate draconian EULA's, and that's why I'm so vehemently against open source software making themselves look like the same thing.
Now we come to copyright licences. Copyright licences are
not contracts! They
do not require anyone's agreement in order for the parties concerned to be bound by its terms. They are fundamentally different from contracts, and therefore from EULA's. It's an entirely different legal construct.
The reason this is so is because of copyright law. Copyright law says that by default, you have
no right whatsoever to redistribute someone else's work. (I'm leaving "fair use" rights out of the discussion, since they make no material difference to it.) Any work is automatically protected by copyright, no registration or anything like that necessary, and if you don't do something about it
no one has the right to redistribute your work (modified or not).
But if you want to allow other people to redistribute your work, you can give them a licence to do so. You distribute this licence together with the work you want it to apply to, and it describes the conditions under which, and manner in which the recipient is allowed to redistribute the work. In the case of the GPL, it says things like that you have to include the source, and redistribute the work under the GPL, etc.
The recipient does
not have to "accept" this licence! It is not a contract, there is no "acceptance". It simply states the terms under which you waive your protection from copyright law, take it or leave it. This is called a copyright licence, the GPL is an example of one, and it
only governs redistribution! Not usage, nor modification. If you want to restrict usage or modification (without redistribution), you need a EULA.
The author gives you these rights whether you want them or not, and whether you agree with them or not they are the only thing that allows you to redistribute the covered work. If you redistribute the work in violation of the terms of the licence, you are breaking the law, not because you are breaking a contract between you and the author, but because you are violating copyright laws. There is no need to have "accepted" the licence first. Copyright law makes it apply in all circumstances.
I really can't put it any plainer than this, so it's the last thing I'm going to say about it. I find especially Kovid's response very disappointing. I simply want to improve the software, but he acts like I'm attacking him or something, resorting to ad hominem's in his latest response and refusing point blank to even listen to my arguments.
Calibre is still a great program, and I'll keep using it and supporting it. But it's very disappointing to see so much unreasonable and irrational resistance to an attempt to improve it slightly.