Re: [Gimp-print-devel] One other thing for the alpha...

SourceForge Headquarters 225 Broadway Suite 1600 San Diego, CA 92101 +1 (858) 454-5900

When considering a binary package compiled from source code that is  
properly copyrighted and licensed for use under the GPL, I respectfully  
submit that the fact of there being no legal requirement for the binary  
package end user to agree with the terms of GPL is not in dispute.

However, I do not find it contrary to the GPL for the installer package  
to require agreement from the end user that the binary package contents  
are provided wholly without warrantee from the providers, and that the  
end user will hold the providers harmless from any claim of damage or  
loss arising from use of the binary package or its contents. As such, I  
propose replacing the text of the full GPL with the modified sections  
0, 11 and 12 as follows: "

TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR USE

0. The "Program", below, refers to any and all source code, object code  
and executable code installed by this package, for use by any end user.

  "You" refers to each end user.

NO WARRANTY

1. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY  
FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW.  EXCEPT  
WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER  
PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,  
EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED  
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.   
THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS  
WITH YOU.  SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF  
ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.

2. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN  
WRITING WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY  
AND/OR REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU  
FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR  
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE  
PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING  
RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A  
FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS), EVEN IF  
SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH  
DAMAGES.

END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS
"

Regarding the compelled inclusion of source code with the binary  
package, I must respectfully disagree with your position. Including the  
source code with the binary package would double the package size,  
which would not be without cost.

Firstly, I would assert that thus far no end user who has desired  
possession of the source code has been denied that right. Assuming this  
assertion true, and assuming also (for the purpose of worst case  
estimation) that all downloads of the source code package have been by  
users desiring to possess the source code for any reason, as opposed to  
those desiring only to compile and use the resultant object files, I  
would assert that, for the Mac OS X user community,  the vast majority  
of end users have no desire to posses the source code. This assertion I  
base on the example of the download statistics for the most recent  
"stable" Gimp-Print release, version 4.2.5 (available here:  
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=1537&amp; 
package_id=32749), where out of 94,240 Mac OS X binary package  
downloads there where only 18,366 source code downloads, or  
approximately 19.5%.

Compelling 80% of users to download a package that is double the  
necessary size, and with the doubling portion being wholly undesired,  
could hardly be considered as a "user friendly" tactic, and would  
possibly drive away potential users who might otherwise try the package  
and find it useful. For example, I would offer as beyond dispute the  
notion that for two free software packages of absolutely equivalent  
function, but with sizes of the first being one megabyte (1 MB) and the  
second being one hundred megabytes (100 MB), most rational persons when  
offered a choice between the two would choose the former; and many, if  
offered only the latter, would choose none. The same might be said for  
packages of 5 MB and 10 MB, albeit to a lesser degree.

The point being that there is value in efficiency.

Needlessly doubling the package size reduces value, not just for the  
doleful end user attempting to download the bloated package over an  
unreliable 33.6 kbps modem connection, but also for the general  
"broad-band" user community who would suffer an aggregate increase of  
over 1200 download-hours (assuming on average an extra minute to  
download the source), not to mention our benefactors at sourceforge who  
would suffer hundreds of gigabytes of wasted bandwidth.

As far as maintaining compliance with the GPL, the final paragraph of  
section 3 states unequivocally that the current practice of providing  
discreet source-code packages  along side binary-only packages  
satisfies the source-code distribution requirement.

GNU General Public License version 2.1, section 3:
"[...] If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering  
access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access  
to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of  
the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy  
the source along with the object code."

On Dec 20, 2003, at 10:15 AM, Robert L Krawitz wrote:

> The installer package really shouldn't ask that the user "agree" to
> the GPL in order to install the package.  It's not necessary to agree
> to the GPL in order to install or use the package.  It's only an issue
> if someone wants to redistribute the package or distribute a modified
> version, and even in that case stating agreement is not necessary,
> merely compliance with the terms.
>
> I'd like to see the source bundled in with the installer package so
> that if someone gives someone else a copy of the installer (or someone
> mirrors it) there's no inadvertent GPL violation.
>
> If the installer program cannot be configured to not require a "click
> to agree", I think it makes more sense for the GPL to be prefaced by:
>
>
> "You do not need to agree to anything at all in order to install and
> use this software package.  Clicking Agree below does not bind you to
> anything or otherwise signify agreement with anything other than your
> ability to click on the button.  The GNU General Public License
> reproduced below governs modification and distribution of the package,
> but the package may be installed and used without restriction."
>
> The following is a reply I received from the FSF last year when I
> asked this question, but we never followed up on this suggestion.
>
> Subject: Re: [in...@fs...: [gnu.org #2189] GPL question on installer]
> From: Free Software Foundation <lic...@gn...>
> To: rl...@al...
> Cc: Licensing <lic...@gn...>
> In-Reply-To: <200...@gn...>
> Date: 22 Oct 2002 13:33:28 -0400
>
>> Subject: [gnu.org #2189] GPL question on installer
>> From: "Robert L Krawitz via RT" <in...@fs...>
>> Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 21:10:08 -0400
>>
>>
>> We're making available a Gimp-print image for Macintosh OS X.  The
>> installer packager wants to force the user to agree to a EULA-style
>> license as a condition of installation.  The choice of the license
>> wording is completely up to the packager, so of course we're using the
>> GPL.
>>
>> The problem that I see here is that end users (who don't want to
>> redistribute the result) do not legally have to agree to the GPL in
>> order to use the software, so we shouldn't be requiring agreement in
>> order for the installation to complete.
>
> I agree.
>
>> We may want people to
>> acknowledge the lack of warranty, but obviously part of the point of
>> the GPL is to educate people that it should *not* be necessary to have
>> a license (even the GPL!) merely to *use* the software.
>>
>> Apparently it isn't possible for the installer to be configured to
>> show the license but not require agreement (Tyler Blessing, who's
>> doing the packaging, can probably explain in more detail).
>>
>
> Just add some text which says, "Clicking Agree below does not bind you
> to anything."
>
> -- 
> -Dave Turner
> Free Software Licensing Guru
> This is not legal advice.  If you need legal advice, see a lawyer.
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials.
> Become an expert in LINUX or just sharpen your skills.  Sign up for  
> IBM's
> Free Linux Tutorials.  Learn everything from the bash shell to sys  
> admin.
> Click now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1278&alloc_id=3371&op=click
> _______________________________________________
> Gimp-print-devel mailing list
> Gim...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gimp-print-devel
>