[Starson17]

Originally Posted by jesscat

He's saying, it's meaningless to use the word "accept" with regard to the GPL.

Yes, that's what he said.

Like a speed limit or something, the GPL doesn't require acceptance.

Every user who runs calibre has made a copy of it. To make that copy, they needed the permission of the authors (Kovid's, chaley's, mine and dozens of others). Without the permission, they would be infringing the copyright and theoretically could be sued.

All the authors got together and all agreed to grant that permission to the end users by way of the GPL. No formal "acceptance" of the published GPL is required by an end user, but it does impose obligations on them if they modify or distribute. The rights granted to the end user are granted in a manner that's somewhat like an implied license, but it's more than that, since the GPL is in writing and it grants rights to end users in writing.

Unlike an EULA, which is an agreement between two parties, which only takes effect if both parties actively "accept" it, the GPL is like a law - it just applies. Someone's refusal to "accept" it is meaningless; there's no way to opt out of it.

This isn't how I'd describe it. The end user needed a "license." He got one. If he was sued by an author, he'd point to the GPL and say "Here's my license." It's just another form of contract. He could say I made my copy and I affirmatively refused to accept the GPL. That's within his power, but then he'd be a copyright infringer, as he'd have no license to use calibre. He could say "I accepted the public license for end users, but not all the other parts." That's sort of meaningless, as those other parts don't apply to him as an end user anyway.

I agree that the GPL doesn't have to be formally accepted by an end user taking any kind of affirmative action to accept it, but if he's asked if he accepted the license and denies it, he's liable to the authors as an infringer. Would the author's sue? Of course not, but here we're just talking about how the law works. Personally, I see the GPL as having two parts, a public grant of a license for end users and the terms that apply to those who wish to modify or redistribute.

Then again - the way it is now is kind of like saying, you can't get a drivers license unless you check a box "accepting" the speed limits. Sure it's true that that's meaningless in a way, because you can't get out of the speed limits by not "accepting" them. They are the law. But that doesn't mean the state mva might not put such a condition on getting a drivers license - requiring that you actively agree to abide by the law (which is effectively the same as accepting the law - because the same reasoning applies; after all, you are required to abide by the law whether or not you agree to it). And really, it doesn't seem all that unreasonable, being required to agree to abide by the law as a condition of getting a benefit, even if you'd be required to do so anyway if you didn't agree.

I basically agree with this analysis, except that laws apply whether you "accept" them or not. You can't refuse to accept them. An end user can affirmatively refuse to accept the freely offered copyright license from all the authors of calibre. As above, there's no good reason to do that, but that's the difference. The end user has received the right to make an end user copy by way of a contract. It's not quite an implied contract, as the grant of the copyright license is in writing.

So in the end, after working this through, I think that while I agree with Captain Chaos that it doesn't effectively add anything to require people to "accept" the GPL, I also agree with you that it nonetheless isn't unreasonable to impose such acceptance as a condition of using the software. If you had the same issues as he does about associating the word "accept" with distasteful EULAs, or if you really wanted to make him happy, you could phrase it differently and not lose anything thereby (that's where I think he's correct - you don't "need" the accept language; that particular choice of words doesn't add anything to the protection you have). But otherwise, it doesn't strike me as particularly unreasonable - I see no other reason to change it.

That's exactly how I see it. I see the distasteful association he has with EULA's, and have small twinges of the same, but I recognize that the user has entered into an EULA, by way of accepting the right to make a legal copy of calibre to run. I see Kovid's desire to make sure that users are fully aware of their rights. They lose nothing by "agreeing" to the GPL. Kovid gains assurance that they actively made their acceptance known if they go beyond merely running the program and modify it. Since modification/distribution are much easier for calibre due to Kovid's work on the development environment that is automatically available with an installation of calibre, I think Kovid came down on the right side of this.

Not that my opinion necessarily means anything; that's just the (casual, not binding, not researched ) conclusion I come to after attempting to work through the issues... And I'm sorry to bore you or anyone with this ramble; I know no one really cares that much - I just hated to see this end so acrimoniously.

I was lucky, I missed most of the acrimony, as I was away, and read the last posts first, not realizing there'd been earlier posts. Like, you, I don't see any reason for acrimony and regret any that arose. And also, like you, it's all just my personal opinion. I happen to think it's a very informed opinion, but others may disagree.