Installer should not require acceptance of the GPL!

[kovidgoyal]

Sigh. Do I need to spell this out in baby language.

The GPL prohibits you from modifying the source code and then redistributing it without complying with the terms of the GPL. calibre is its own development environment, therefore by agreeing to abide by the terms of the GPL you are agreeing to not modify and redistribute calibre, using calibre, without complying with the terms of the GPL.

And once again

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.

Focus on the first sentence in bold.
Then focus on the second sentence in bold.
Then focus on my previous post where I said:

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

Understand that in this context use means modify and redistribute.

Connect the dots. Color the pictures, whatever floats your boat.

[Starson17]

Originally Posted by Captain Chaos

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)

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.

so you think you are gaining some kind of protection or advantage by making people check a checkbox.

My personal opinion is that it's very desirable to let people know what they can and can't do. The checkbox serves as an indication to Kovid and all the other developers that the user has, at a minimum, had a chance to read the GPL. If the user does no more than run the program, then he has no obligations, but if he does more than that, and Kovid has worked very hard to make that easy, by modifying the program, then the checkbox guarantees that the user has actually agreed to the terms of the GPL. What's wrong with that? If the user doesn't wish to modify or distribute, he can read the GPL and find out he has no obligations to fulfill. If he wants to do more, he can read the GPL and find out under what conditions it applies and what obligations he undertakes.

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.

Ouch! I'm with Kovid 100% on this. If a user doesn't agree with the GPL, let him go elsewhere.

Contrary to what you say, it is entirely permissible for someone to disagree with the GPL, and still legally use the program.

Kovid has the right to set whatever terms he wants for people to use his work. If he wants users to check the box that says they accept the GPL, he can require that. He can require that, even if accepting the GPL imposes no obligations on the end user who merely wants to run the program. The GPL doesn't require the end user who merely runs the program to accept it, but Kovid can certainly make that requirement (and personally I like it).

If they redistribute the program in violation of the GPL, you can sue them, even if they have not "accepted" the GPL.

You're getting into dangerous territory now. Yes, Kovid can bring suit for copyright infringement if someone copies his work without accepting the GPL. The GPL claims to be "accepted" merely by modifying or redistributing, so there might be an argument about whether the GPL applies. Kovid has decided to at least partially avoid that possible "argument" by requiring all to accept the GPL. That's his right, and avoiding that argument is one benefit of requiring all to accept 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.

This is the "argument" he avoids because the license is up front and accepted by all who run it. If the box got checked, it's hard to claim that the user didn't know about the GPL, and it's hard to claim that the GPL wasn't accepted.

Having a checkbox there does not offer you any additional protection or other advantage.

I disagree. Even if I thought it offered zero legal advantage (I don't), I'd still think it was a good idea to display the GPL and require acceptance. Anyone who is so allergic to the GPL that they won't agree to it when it imposes no obligations on them can look elsewhere, as far as I'm concerned.

[Captain Chaos]

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.

[kovidgoyal]

Once more in baby^2 talk

The GPL imposes restrictions on what you can do with calibre. I do not like to impose restrictions on people automatically. Ergo there is an accept checkbox. This has absolutely nothing to do with EULA's, legal arguments or anything even remotely having to do with lawyers.

Get off your hobby horse about EULA's and actually listen to what I'm saying.

[Captain Chaos]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

Get off your hobby horse about EULA's and actually listen to what I'm saying.

I understand perfectly what you are saying. Unfortunately it makes no sense. Now, it's your program, and you are perfectly entitled to do things that make no sense. I'm just trying to convince you that you are being unreasonable, and it's disappointing to see how childishly you react.

You are determined not to change your mind and you refuse to consider any of my arguments. You're behaving exactly like a spoiled child stamping his feet and putting his fingers in his ears shouting "la la la la la" at the top of his voice. You even stoop to childish ad hominems by saying you have to put things in baby talk, thereby implying that I'm a baby who isn't capable of understanding adult conversation.

Again, it's all extremely disappointing behaviour from the author of such a well known, great open source program. I expected better. But, it's your prerogative, and if you want to convince yourself you're somehow doing anyone a favour or gaining any kind of protection from your magic checkbox, I just have to live with that.

Goodbye!

[kovidgoyal]

Originally Posted by Captain Chaos

Goodbye!

And good riddance.

[alansplace]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

And good riddance.

[jesscat]

I am not someone who cares in the slightest about clicking the box. I mostly ignore it. I'm not really concerned about the substance of this post.

But I have to say, from a legal perspective, in an area in which I have experience and skill (unlike many calibre-related areas), I feel fairly confident saying that Captain Chaos is quite correct in his interpretation and analysis, and I believe he attempted to explain this in a relatively polite (and clear) manner before the conversation devolved. He was complimentary of calibre throughout. I have to say it bothers me to see reasonably respectful, articulate commenters being treated as if they are rude, intrusive, unwanted, nasty spammers.

[kovidgoyal]

@jesscat: I am going to make one more attempt to explain what I'm saying.

1) My position has nothing to do with "gaining protection" or keeping the right to sue people.

2) CC and, presumably, you claim that copyright applies even without the presence of that checkbox. I certainly hope it does, given that calibre is distributed in many forms not all of which are amenable to presenting a copyright notice. But, whether it does or does not, is irrelevant.

3) The GPL imposes restriction on what you as the end user can do. Even if those restrictions apply automatically, I still think it is polite to inform you of them. I know of no more effective way to do so than to present the license and to indicate that it has non trivial content, by adding a checkbox asking you to accept it. Which is what I have said repeatedly in this thread and been ignored.

I have only so much tolerance for people that push their agendas on others without taking the time to listen and appreciate that those others might have alternative views.

[jesscat]

Like him, I think asking people to accept the GPL is completely irrelevant to your legal position. Unlike him, I don't particularly mind about being asked to accept the GPL or think it's a big deal.

If I were to offer an opinion, I'd say some of the tension here arose from the use of the word "accept," and it's probably a lawyerly kind of thing - the tendency to get all uptight about specific use of words (Of course, I don't know for sure that he's a lawyer!). He's saying, it's meaningless to use the word "accept" with regard to the GPL. Like a speed limit or something, the GPL doesn't require acceptance. 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.

But your desire to inform people of the law is completely reasonable. So you could use a word other than "accept," and perhaps that would make Captain Chaos happier even if the checkbox were still there. So if, for example, the user, by checking the checkbox, rather than"accepting" the GPL instead simply acknowledged it, or acknowledged being informed of it, or acknowledged that the redistribution of the program is governed by it, or whatever.

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.

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.

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.

[kovidgoyal]

Cool As I have no bad associations with EULAS (I use almost all open source software) I'm going to leave that checkbox as is.

[Manichean]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

3) The GPL imposes restriction on what you as the end user can do. Even if those restrictions apply automatically, I still think it is polite to inform you of them.

This is the relevant part of the whole argument to me.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

You know, it is Kovid's program (even if others have contributed to its development) and he is being very generous to let us all use it for free. If he wants a GPL, he has every right to impose one. Being open source does not mean public domain. If anyone has a problem with that, they have the freedom to return the program for a full refund of what they paid for it.

[mrmikel]

I think that Kovid's position is 100% correct despite the shade tree lawyering by some. Checking accept is a way of making clear to the potential user that they have certain obligations, and that they are binding obligations. It is a way of making them think about them, so that no one can modify the software and then say, "Well, gee, I didn't know."

[rdfry]

Originally Posted by Captain Chaos

I understand perfectly what you are saying. Unfortunately it makes no sense. Now, it's your program, and you are perfectly entitled to do things that make no sense. I'm just trying to convince you that you are being unreasonable, and it's disappointing to see how childishly you react.

You are determined not to change your mind and you refuse to consider any of my arguments. You're behaving exactly like a spoiled child stamping his feet and putting his fingers in his ears shouting "la la la la la" at the top of his voice. You even stoop to childish ad hominems by saying you have to put things in baby talk, thereby implying that I'm a baby who isn't capable of understanding adult conversation.

Again, it's all extremely disappointing behaviour from the author of such a well known, great open source program. I expected better. But, it's your prerogative, and if you want to convince yourself you're somehow doing anyone a favour or gaining any kind of protection from your magic checkbox, I just have to live with that.

Goodbye!

And you sir are a nitpicking jackass.