Installer should not require acceptance of the GPL!

[Starko]

From the license:

"For example, if you distribute copies of such a program ... ... you must show them these terms so they know their rights."

Nowehere does it say that you must force users to explicitly state their agreement.

From the GPL site itself :

"How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs

If you develop a new program, and you want it to be of the greatest possible use to the public, the best way to achieve this is to make it free software which everyone can redistribute and change under these terms.

To do so, attach the following notices to the program. It is safest to attach them to the start of each source file to most effectively state the exclusion of warranty; and each file should have at least the “copyright” line and a pointer to where the full notice is found.

<one line to give the program's name and a brief idea of what it does.>
Copyright (C) <year> <name of author>

This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version.

This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
GNU General Public License for more details.

You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along with this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.

Also add information on how to contact you by electronic and paper mail.
....
for a GUI interface, you would use an “about box”.

Up until now 99.99% of all the users (non-developers) had to do something that did not really need to be done. One more screen to see, two more actions to perform and decisions to make. Tiny but unnecessary mental friction of agreeing to something you can't be truly expected to read...

As a user all i can say : Please, don't make me think!

Think about it

[Starson17]

Originally Posted by Starko

Think about it

He did. He'd like all users (who don't modify or distribute) to agree. You are right that the license does not require him to have users agree. Nor does it prohibit it.

He wants users to be aware of their obligations, which apply only if they modify or redistribute. Kovid has made it very easy to modify and redistribute, so he wants users to know about the GPL. Even if he did remove the "I agree" click button before proceeding, He'd want an "I have read the GPL" or "I confirm that I know this work is covered by the GPL" or something equivalent, so you wouldn't save any clicks with the change you want. At most, you'd get a slight change in the wording near the click box.

Because the GPL doesn't even cover end users, regardless if they agree or not, and always covers those who modify or redistribute, even if they don't click a box, the difference between what you want and what you have now is a minor change in the text.

[CRussel]

Originally Posted by Starson17

Because the GPL doesn't even cover end users, regardless if they agree or not, and always covers those who modify or redistribute, even if they don't click a box, the difference between what you want and what you have now is a minor change in the text.

IOW, a distinction without a difference. So leave the silly thing alone, already. Kovid has said clearly he doesn't like hidden agreements and he wants everyone who uses the program to be aware that it is covered by the GPL. I have zero problem with this. It's his decision.

[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.

[Starson17]

Originally Posted by CRussel

IOW, a distinction without a difference.

The distinction is minor, but there is a difference. It changes the way the user gets the right to make the copy he runs. In the current case, the user affirmatively agrees that if he modifies calibre, he will let others have his modifications to build on. In the other, the GPL applies "automatically" when the user makes the mods and "acceptance" comes automatically by making the mods.

Kovid dislikes agreements that "automatically" apply. As it happens, so do I

So leave the silly thing alone, already.

Does it bother you that I'm trying to explain how the GPL works and what the difference is?

Kovid has said clearly he doesn't like hidden agreements and he wants everyone who uses the program to be aware that it is covered by the GPL. I have zero problem with this. It's his decision.

I completely agree.

[user_none]

Why are Windows users the only ones forced to agree to the GPL before they can use calibre? The OS X and Linux versions don't even show the GPL let alone require agreeing to it.

[theducks]

Originally Posted by user_none

Why are Windows users the only ones forced to agree to the GPL before they can use calibre? The OS X and Linux versions don't even show the GPL let alone require agreeing to it.

Because Windows users are already used to bending over for M$'s heavy handedness

[Starson17]

Originally Posted by user_none

Why are Windows users the only ones forced to agree to the GPL before they can use calibre? The OS X and Linux versions don't even show the GPL let alone require agreeing to it.

I wondered that as well. Anyone who wants to run it without formally accepting the GPL can run it via OS X or Linux. It struck me that perhaps OS X and Linux users are more familiar with the GPL and their obligations than Windows users. On the other hand, any Windows user is less likely to be a modifier/distributor so they'd have no obligations under the GPL.

[ARussell]

I don't mean to take sides or anything in this matter, but there was a very similar backlash that Firefox faced a few years ago. I really appreciate all of the work that's gone into Calibre, and I use the Arch Linux package (where I don't remember seeing any EULA-style dialogs), so this matter doesn't really affect me, but I figured I'd at least post some of the relevant links. In the end, though, I don't think Firefox displays the GPL on first boot.

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+s....0/+bug/269656
http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2008/...icense-issues/
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...80917045510597
http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic....80919113727960

[kovidgoyal]

Originally Posted by user_none

Why are Windows users the only ones forced to agree to the GPL before they can use calibre? The OS X and Linux versions don't even show the GPL let alone require agreeing to it.

Quoting myself:

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.

There's only so much work I am willing to do for politeness.

@ARussell: The problem with firefox was that it showed the incorrect license terms for the Ubuntu version of firefox.

[Starko]

Even if those restrictions apply automatically, I still think it is polite to inform you of them.

Kovid, honestly... Demanding explicit agreement regardelss of whether someone will be distributing or not is not really polite (more like police or GPL nazi) and showing first few lines of some long legal mumbo jumbo long text is not really "informing". No one will scroll to read it anyway.

If you really wanted and inform and be polite have the first page of the setup wizard display something human readable like this (please bear with my english and see the spirit instead of letter):

"This is FREE software. Yet it is distributed under a license that puts some limitations on the way you can distribute it. If you plan on distributing this software in any form you really should read the license text which can be found in About box"

Below there would be just button "Proceed"

------------------------------

Imagine you and i were neighbours and you came to my place and i asked you to install Calibre for me on my PC. Would you say "sure Konstantin, but only after you read this GPL license first and put a check mark in that "I agree" check box and click on "I agree" here with your own hand. After that i will do the rest"

[kovidgoyal]

I knew it wouldn't be too long before the GPL haters came crawling out of the woodwork. that makes me feel so much better about having the GPL up there.

[LGN]

Interesting discussion.
I think I speak for many users: people don't actually read Licenses. Besides I think they are legally doubtful, when I come home with a gadget I bought, a piece of software or just downloaded something I want or need, I already invested my time in it. Who of you ever brought back software because of it's license, really.
Install, click click click, and off I go. Especially with Open Source software from a trusted source. Heck, even if I read all the blabla, I'm lost very quick. Personally I think this stuff is not meant for end users but for lawyers. When in doubt I let my cat click "I agree" for the license.
To be completely honest, it's a click I rather not have to do. Licenses I see as something I am forced to accept, whether they grand you permissions or take them away. As an end user I just want to get the program installed.

Sure it's polite to tell people they rights and/or restrictions. Sure there are haters and lovers of GPL. Sure it's your right as a developer, and yes, it does give the installer a 'professional' look. Will most people care reading the license? For every GPL software again? For every version? Or ever? I doubt it. It's just one more click more we have to endure, it's no big deal, but we would not miss it if it wasn't there.

[user_none]

Originally Posted by LGN

people don't actually read Licenses.

That in itself doesn't mean the license isn't binding. I for one do read every software (and other license) before I agree. Probably, something about working in the financial industry got me into this habit. I've said to people plenty of times, "it's in the contract, which you signed saying you fully understand and agree to the terms."

Originally Posted by LGN

Besides I think they are legally doubtful

The courts (in the US) continue to uphold them as, legal, valid and binding. Earlier this year the US Supreme Court rulled that AT&T's terms of service that prohibit customers from filling class action law suits to is valid. The USC then threw out a pending class action suit and stated that the terms say that individual arbitration is the only course of action for customers so that's what people need to do.

Originally Posted by LGN

Who of you ever brought back software because of it's license, really.

Plenty of people return the copy of Windows that come with their computer. It says it in the license that you can get a full refund from the manufacturer if you don't want it and it comes preloaded.

Originally Posted by LGN

Personally I think this stuff is not meant for end users but for lawyers.

It's written to be able to stand in a court of law. Unfortunately, the legal system (in the US) is designed so only lawyers somewhat understand it. However, this still does not absolve an individual from breaking the law.

[Starson17]

Originally Posted by user_none

It's written to be able to stand in a court of law.

And it's written to keep the software perpetually free of restrictions so that a wonderful program like calibre can be written, made available to all the end users and grow into the future. Each current developer agrees to pass forward his contribution to future developers, and it's that GPL-protected process that makes open source work so well.

Projects like calibre flourish because the developers are willing to contribute their time and effort. Calibre is only possible because of the long string of earlier developers that made their contributions to various packages that were later incorporated into calibre.

I suppose it's all just a philosophy thing, but if so, IMHO, it's a powerful philosophy.