Installer should not require acceptance of the GPL!

[user_none]

@Starson17, Just to clarify. I was referring to the complexity of the language of the text. Meaning why it's not written in plain English. I was not referring to why the GPL was created and what it is for.

[Starko]

I believe this is a argument between two planes of existence:
"don't make me do unnecessary things" vs "take my cause seriously"
usability vs ideology

It's clear now that the need for awareness of GPL small print has really important place in your perception of the world and you are probably just as surprised with us, not being able to see it your way, as we are with you, not being able to see it our way.

I am sure that for a while now every time i install open source software i will be noticing whether they choose to "politely inform me of my rights" or not.

Meanwhile i hope that the new installer remembers my previous choice to agree to the terms and conditions of GPL just as it remembers installation path and whether or not to create a Desktop icon. Seems like a great compromise

[kovidgoyal]

Originally Posted by Starko

usability vs ideology

You actually mean your ideology which is "anything goes as long as I am not inconvenienced" vs. my ideology, which is that I like to inform people of what their rights and obligations are up front, and I believe that people should be a little inconvenienced for something that is important.

I am sure that for a while now every time i install open source software i will be noticing whether they choose to "politely inform me of my rights" or not.

Good for you. Take the time to read and understand those rights as well, and appreciate the wonderful ecosystem that those rights have been instrumental in creating.

Meanwhile i hope that the new installer remembers my previous choice to agree to the terms and conditions of GPL just as it remembers installation path and whether or not to create a Desktop icon. Seems like a great compromise

No, it does not and it will not.

[Starko]

Wow Kovid, take it easy... man ... what's with the attacking mode?

You insist over and over that i take the time and read something i have read and understood maybe even before Calibre became a twinkle in your mind's eye. And it still does not convince me that install script of GPL programm should act in this way/wording.


As for your exaggerated

anything goes as long as I am not inconvenienced

goes: in my case is more like "nothing strictly necessary should go that inconveniences users, especially if it does not apply to them and there are other ways". No one argues whether GPL is great, it's whether your insistence that every one should memorize GPL by heart before adding a single book to the library (see how easy and at the same counterproductive exaggerating is?) is strictly necessary is what divides us.

You are a good programmer but it does not necessarily means that you are right in this particular thread (neither do i say that you are wrong). And of course you don't have to be right, because it is your right to do with this program anything you feel like doing - we all realize that. Peace brother...

No, it does not and it will not.

Why not? If i already once have read, understood, crossed my heart and promised to die if i ever break the sacred GPL oath. What's with the agreement renewal system? Is there some rationale behind that?

Maybe be someone will start making exact copy of Calibre but without the forced daily GPL education.

[Starson17]

Originally Posted by user_none

@Starson17, Just to clarify. I was referring to the complexity of the language of the text. Meaning why it's not written in plain English. I was not referring to why the GPL was created and what it is for.

I can see that now

[kovidgoyal]

@Starko: Because your posts reminded me of another very important reason to have that checkbox there. To annoy the shit out of you.

[LGN]

On a closing note I want to thank kovidgoyal for making sush a great application, offer it free of charge AND making it Open Source Software!

Now go read the license, before he might go and sneak in an "I love kovidgoyal, he is my master" check-box in the next release

[Starko]

Kovid, i am sorry if i upset you so much.

[kovidgoyal]

Thank you for apologizing, and we can hopefully consign this thread to the dustbin of history.

To those of you that do not appreciate my reasons for having the GPL up there, it is just something you will have to live with.

[Starko]

You are welcome.

It's clear that you are not planning changing current behavior, it's clear that we will have to live with it.

But may we (those of us that do not share your reasons for having the GPL up there) still discuss it here? Not necessarily with you. Just banter among the dissidents and make jokes about it? Can you live with that? ;-)

[DiapDealer]

I believe there's already an opt-in section of the forum reserved for that sort of discussion: Politics, Religion and GPL vs EULA nitpicking.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by Starko

You are welcome.

It's clear that you are not planning changing current behavior, it's clear that we will have to live with it.

But may we (those of us that do not share your reasons for having the GPL up there) still discuss it here? Not necessarily with you. Just banter among the dissidents and make jokes about it? Can you live with that? ;-)

Since Kovid has made it clear that the GPL is not going away (something I have no problem with since he is the primary developer), what is the point of further discussion, other than for petty carping?

[tcreek]

To me, it is really going to be upsetting if this thread does not continue as I am to be left hanging. I have changed my opinion five times as who had the best argument and was just about to switch sides again.

[ymerejo42]

I just discovered this thread, and I have to say that I kind of see Kovid's point. He wants to make sure people have (at the least) legally acknowledged that they understand they're not allowed to re-distribute calibre or any modifications of it without giving him (and the other developers) credit.

In another thread, I'd been talking with Kovid about making a new installer for calibre, since I personally don't like the .msi system, I prefer NSIS. If I had, the GPL would have been included, although I probably wouldn't have made it an active checkbox unless he'd asked me to. Personally, I figure that just displaying it and labeling the button "Accept" is sufficient, but Kovid wants to make absolutely certain that people acknowledge that they've read and understand the GPL. Makes sense, since he wants to protect all the work everyone (especially himself) has put into the program.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by tcreek

To me, it is really going to be upsetting if this thread does not continue as I am to be left hanging. I have changed my opinion five times as who had the best argument and was just about to switch sides again.

And what difference would it make?