Slashdot Log In
Mozilla Admits Firefox EULA Is Flawed
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue Sep 16, 2008 01:25 PM
from the sudden-outbreak dept.
from the sudden-outbreak dept.
darthcamaro writes "Mozilla has now come around and is taking seriously the concerns of Ubuntu and others about the Firefox EULA, which we discussed vigorously the other day. In fact Mozilla told InternetNews.com that the EULA itself is flawed and will be replaced with something else. Quoting Mozilla Chairperson Mitchell Baker from the article: 'There is a need for something, something to explain the license[.] I'm not sure I would call it a EULA because that has a meaning to many people of adding restrictions to software and we won't be doing that. We'll be having a license agreement much as Red Hat has a license agreement that says the software is available under the GPL and don't use our trademarks et cetera. So we'll have a license agreement but we won't think of it as a EULA.'"
Related Stories
[+]
Mozilla Demanding Firefox Display EULA In Ubuntu 785 comments
TRS-80 writes "Users of the upcoming Ubuntu release, Intrepid Ibex, are being confronted with an EULA the first time they launch Firefox. Mark Shuttleworth says 'Mozilla Corp asked that this be added in order for us to continue to call the browser Firefox... I would not consider an EULA as a best practice. It's unfortunate that Mozilla feels this is absolutely necessary' and notes there's an unbranded 'abrowser' package available. Many of the comments say Ubuntu should ditch Firefox as this makes it clear it's not Free Software, hence unsuitable for Ubuntu main, and just ship Iceweasel or Epiphany, the GNOME browser." A few comments take Canonical to task for agreeing to Mozilla's demand to display an EULA without consulting the community.
[+]
Mozilla Nixes Firefox EULA Requirement 154 comments
Less than a week ago, Mozilla asked (and Canonical relucantly agreed, in development versions of Intrepid Ibex) that users be required on first use to agree to a EULA before using Firefox. This drew lots of criticism, and Mozilla agreed that the requirement was flawed. Now, according to a story at Groklaw, the EULA requirement's been done away with. From the Groklaw article linked: "Bottom line: Now, you can install and use Firefox without having to agree to a EULA. The services have been separated out. If they were opt in instead of opt out, I'd be happier, but this is acceptable to me. There may be further tweaks, I understand, but I think it's time to acknowledge that Mozilla is behaving very well indeed now and demonstrating a desire to get this right."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
My primary question... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:My primary question... (Score:5, Funny)
Yes but this way they can give it a fun sounding name with a happy acronym like FUNS (Free Unlicenced Not-free Software) or FAIRN (Free Although Its Really Not).
Or even better: FAIBNFAIL (Free As In Beer, Not Free As In Libre).
Ignore that it doesn't quite conform to any of those.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:My primary question... (Score:5, Insightful)
Silly. I think what they are really looking for is called a "Copyright notice". Basically stating the software source code is covered under the GPL and the artwork, name and other aspects are covered under trademark and copyright.
Hey, that kind of sounds like the About Mozilla Firefox option under help.
What are we talking about again?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:My primary question... (Score:5, Funny)
Do I have to accept it in order to proceed? If I do, it's a EULA no matter what you call it.
Did you even read the article?!? It's not an End User License Agreement, it's just a License Agreement for the End User so it's not a EULA...
it's a LAEU...
Obviously way different.
Parent
Re:My primary question... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:My primary question... (Score:4, Funny)
Do I have to read the article in order to proceed replying on Slashdot?!? If I do, it's not Slashdot no matter what you call it.
Parent
End User License Agreement (Score:5, Insightful)
You're going to have a License Agreement presented to the End User.. Maybe call it LAEU?
It's walking like a duck and quacking like a duck.
Re:End User License Agreement (Score:5, Funny)
It's walking like a duck and quacking like a duck.
One is a mallard with a cold. The other.....
I forget the rest but your mother is a whore.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It's walking like a duck and quacking like a duck.
So it's not a EULA or LAEU at all. It's a duck.
Re:End User License Agreement (Score:5, Funny)
...ducks...
Parent
So true (Score:3, Funny)
At starbuck's this morning all the bluehaired ladies were sitting around laughing at the fox while they surfed the web using assorted beta software packages.
I think one of 'em had Dillo v0.9 from an svn repository.
not a EULA eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
hmm yeah we need some sort of agreement.. an agreement with the user.. that lets them know the terms of our license.. you know for our trademarks and stuff... but not a EULA.
I wonder if there's an acronym for this user agreement to our license thingy...
Re:not a EULA eh? (Score:5, Informative)
If you remove the "use" from the second line of your post it becomes much more accurate. The GPL only imposes restrictions on how you can distribute software. Anyone can use it however they want.
Parent
Re:not a EULA eh? (Score:4, Insightful)
The GPL only imposes restrictions on how you can distribute software. Anyone can use it however they want.
In fact, that's the fundamental argument about why an EULA for GPL'd software is wrong. An EULA really implies an "End User Use License Agreement". But GPL software is sold (or given), not licensed. The GPL is a distribution license, and explicitly places no restrictions on use. So the EULA for Firefox really ought to say, "You can use Firefox for whatever you want, but if you want to distribute it, please comply with the GPL. Oh, and don't use the trademark 'Firefox' for any other browser. Otherwise, have a nice day!"
Parent
Re:not a EULA eh? (Score:5, Funny)
That's not 'use' as defined in this context. That's called distribution. Sniffing the coke is use, selling it is distribution. Cutting it and selling it is not use. It is still distribution.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well that depends on how one is going to use it. But too not split hairs the GPL requires you to include the GPL with all GPL software. It doesn't say that it can not be displayed for them.
The fact that so many people are getting so upset over this is just no longer funny. Is this really worth getting all up in arms over?
Mozilla seems to want to do what is right. And goodness knows they have already done the FOSS community a world of good.
It isn't the specifics... it's the principle. (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody has to agree to the GPL to use a GPL'ed piece of software -- only to gain additional rights like redistribution. All Mozilla really needs to do is to look at the Trolltech / Qt situation, and then look around and see real alternatives to their product (Opera / WebKit / etc), and they'll wake up and smell the coffee. There isn't enough justification for the EULA hassle just to "explain the license", and that will be worked around by developers and distributions.
Looks like they missed the point.
--
Hey code monkey... learn electronics! Powerful microcontroller kits for the digital generation. [nerdkits.com]
Re: (Score:3)
That's what the GPL says.
Then again, plenty of people package installers for GPL software where the GPL is presented as if it were an EULA and the user must indicate acceptance of the GPL in order to install the software.
(And, except for a legalistic problem with the term "accept", I don't see this as undesirable: you should be aware of what you can do with the license, and what you don't need the license to do, when you get GPL software, or s
Re:It isn't the specifics... it's the principle. (Score:5, Informative)
Assuming that you have obtained the software legally (for example, from somehow who is distributing it under the GPL), you need no further rights granted to run it. The GPL gives you the additional right to distribute the software (under the given conditions). However, the GPL also contains some things (like a disclaimer of warranty), which do apply to all end users.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The person you got the software from gave you the right to use it, because he accepted the terms of the GPL (or was the copyright holder).
Re:It isn't the specifics... it's the principle. (Score:5, Insightful)
That was nice of him to do, but how and where exactly did he do that?
Example: Here http://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/emacs/windows/emacs-21.3-bin-i386.tar.gz [gnu.org] (Sorry, windows binary, but that was the only binary I could find) is a link to emacs. Where does anyone(Other then the gpl itself) grant me the right to run software?
If the fact that the file is online online and can be downloaded is enough to grant me access to run it,
can it not then be argued, that I also have the right to run and use the ati drivers(https://a248.e.akamai.net/f/674/9206/0/www2.ati.com/drivers/firegl/firegl_8_502_xp32_driver_only_065657.exe) without accepting the eula?
This is 2 different files, and I can't see any difference other then the license. And if I reject the license, I should have the same right to use/not use both files.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The people running gnu.org granted you the right to run the software, by legally making it available to you.
The way the GPL comes in is how they became legally able to make it available. Granted, in this case it's because they happen to be the copyright holders, but they
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That doesn't make sense. If you don't agree to the license, then the "you may not use this software" clause never comes into effect, and it's as if the EULA wasn't there at all. You have to accept that restriction before it becomes valid.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That you think you need special rights to use the software is a consequence of the EULA-happy environment corporations have been creating for a few decades now.
If you obtained the software legitimately, you can do anything you want with it, short of unauthorized redistribution (which is prevented by copyright). You can use it in any way you want. If you own a table, you can put your dinner on it, you can stand on it to reach your chandelier, you can barricade your door with it, you can chop it up for firewo
Re:It isn't the specifics... it's the principle. (Score:4, Informative)
The FSF's idea of free software has 2 "levels" of freedoms.
Basically, when the programmer releases their software under the GPL, they are granting everyone freedoms 0 and 1 (to use it for any purpose and to modify the program) by the terms of the GPL. You or anyone else do not have to agree to anything to get those freedoms, not the GPL, not anything. You are given them without conditions by the programmer.
Now, the GPL comes in. If you choose to agree to the terms it offers, you get 2 additional freedoms (to redistribute and to share your modifications with everyone), rights that you otherwise don't have, and also accept a few requirements, such as making the source available. If you don't agree to it, you still have those 2 previous freedoms (0 and 1), but not these other 2 (2 and 3), and do not have their requirements either.
Freedoms 0 and 1 are granted just as you say "just does not make any sense". I'm not sure why you feel it doesn't make sense. Are you suspicious of the concept of getting "something for nothing"?
Parent
Re:The GPL must be complied with, period. (Score:5, Informative)
See Section 9 of the GPL v3 [fsf.org]:
Parent
Acronyms are Hard (Score:2)
This isn't an End User License Agreement, it's a license agreement. For, ummmm, the end users.
'There is a need for something, something...' (Score:5, Insightful)
Must... justify... high priced... lawyers...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In corporate America, high-priced lawyers justify themselves!
A rose by any other name... (Score:4, Insightful)
"So we'll have a license agreement but we won't think of it as a EULA.'"
They still don't get it. Anything you have to agree to with an "I agree" button, no matter what they call it, is a EULA.
Re:A rose by any other name... (Score:5, Informative)
They still don't get it. Anything you have to agree to with an "I agree" button, no matter what they call it, is a EULA.
According to this [wordpress.com] you will not have to. Summary points:
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I've filed a couple of bug reports against GPL'ed software on this, because GPL specifically says you don't need to agree to it to use the software.
Re:A rose by any other name... (Score:4, Interesting)
I've filed a couple of bug reports against GPL'ed software on this, because GPL specifically says you don't need to agree to it to use the software.
By clicking "I Agree" you agree that you don't need to agree to anything.
By clicking "I Disagree" you agree that Segmentation fault - core dumped
Parent
Not only (Score:5, Insightful)
Not only do the GPL bits not belong in the EULA, but the trademark bits don't belong in the EULA either. We're not talking about what end users do, because Mozilla has never stopped end users from doing whatever they want. Mozilla is concerned with distributors repacking Mozilla products with changes they don't like, and misrepresenting their trademark.
They have their license information online. They make it clear to developers how the project can and can not be repackaged while maintaining official branding.
How does any of that relate to the end user?
The answer is to completely remove the nag screen from the end user.
They want a Splash Screen... (Score:5, Insightful)
Lots of software has splash screens, and most people don't have an aneurysm over them. You pop up the brand, mention the trademarks, and in the meantime the software is doing it's thing.
Nice software has an option to turn off the splash screen. But you will probably see it the first time.
Clicking through an "agreement" to not violate their trademark/copyright is dumb. I mean, I've never agreed not to murder anyone...
So. (Score:2)
I'm guessing it'll be a while.
Informational dialog (Score:5, Interesting)
If it's simply for the user's information, why not make it open in a tab when the browser is opened for the first time, not an obtrusive dialog box like it is now? It would be like the tab which spawns where there's an automatic update.
This way, Mozilla can have its "EULA sans mandatory agreement" and the users can simply close the tab if they're not interested in reading the lengthy open source licenses or a summary thereof.
Losing it? (Score:2)
What is happening? Why this brain-dead action? Why piss off people like this? The Mozilla crowd is being hit hard by WebKit, and this is their answer?
As usual, when politics get involved, everything goes down the drain.
Mitchell's own words (Score:5, Informative)
Read Mitchell's own words [lizardwrangler.com].
I really don't understand why people keep linking to silly "news" sites when there's pretty much always far more comprehensive and accurate information available directly at the source.
I got it (Score:5, Funny)
License Agreement for Mozilla End-users.
What, no good?
Why why why?! (Score:5, Interesting)
Why does Red Hat, Mozilla, or any other company, need a license telling people not to use their trademarks?! Isn't that what fricken trademark law is all about?! Do they honestly believe I can use Coke's trademark anyway I want merely because Coke doesn't come with a EULA?!
Having too many lawyers never solved any problem, but they've created more than a few. This is one of those instances.
serious attack of deja moo (Score:4, Insightful)
This is the TeX argument all over again. (Score:3, Interesting)
My suggestion is that the Mozilla Foundation offer a completely unbranded version of their browser software for public distribution, and name the binary 'wb' - for Web-Browser - or somesuch. The software licence could be the GPL and allow distributors who wish to brand both altered and unaltered versions of 'wb' with their own mark to do so. If end users wish to apply the FireFox brand to wb they could do so by downloading a EULA-protected set of branding files _only_ from Mozilla Corp. The installer of the branding files could very easily check that the particular instance of 'wb' was in fact the genuine unadulterated item before applying the patches to brand 'wb' as a genuine instance of 'firefox'.
Mozilla Foundation: You listening? 'cos I'd be happy with that approach.
Problem solved?
Re:In order to read this message (Score:5, Funny)
No. It'll be a MULA. Middle User License Agreement. An Ubuntu employee will have to drop by your house and click through the agreement...
Parent
Re:LAfEU as in beer (Score:4, Funny)
LAfEU (pronounced life)
So what your saying is it's about time the people obsessing over EULA got a LAfEU.
Meh, Still looks more like laughy you.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not the point. They want to protect their trade marks.
They have no problem with the code being distributed within the terms of GPL.
The problem[1] is with using the logos and naming outside of their License Agreement.
I'm not clear on the details[2] other than the distinction between the code and the trade marks. Iceweasel is OK, for example, because it follows GPL and doesn't even bother with the trade marked material.
[1] According to Mozilla
[2] I suppose I could RTFA
Re:License Notification, Warranty Agreement. (Score:5, Informative)
1. Mozilla doesn't need a license notification for the GPL because A) Firefox is not licensed under the GPL, and B) Even if it were licensed under the GPL, that license applies to distribution, not use. I'm sure you've probably used GPL software before without having to agree to anything beforehand...
2. Mozilla should not use the trademark (TM) symbol as a means to protect their Firefox brand because "Firefox" is actually a registered trademark. They should (and do) use the registered trademark symbol (R).
Parent
Re:Legitimate Need? (Score:4, Informative)
Is there a legitimate need for a EULA?
Is there a legitimate need for license text? Yes. I won't get into the idiotic "EULA dance" Slashdot armchair lawyers engage in. 'EULA' is not a term of art. A document calling itself a EULA means whatever it says it means. It could also call itself a Pony License if the licensor wanted.
An SLA, regardless of what it is: proprietary, BSD, GPL, contains a great deal more than simply a license grant. It is an agreement that imposes specific terms and restrictions on all users of software. It contains a number of important notifications by convention (because inclusion in the license is the easiest way to give valid legal notice and prove knowledge in litigation), from warranty disclaimers, limitations of liability, choice of law, trademark/patent notices, and other relevant concerns. In any given SLA, the license portion is dwarfed by the other portions.
In any software exclusively distributed under an SLA, it is the only way you obtain a valid license under copyright and the only way you come into legal possession of a copy. Therefore, the idea that an SLA "takes away" rights is legally, technically, mechanically, and semantically incorrect. The copyright holder has the sole, exclusive right to authorize who may acquire a copy, how they may do so, and what rights are vested in that copy. Without legal possession, you have zero rights to the work.
Some SLAs give you more than others. That's a fact. But it's entirely up to the copyright holder, while the copyright is in effect, to determine who gets a copy and/or shares in exclusive rights.
There's no need to agree to the copyright restrictions, because by default you have no right to redistribution unless it's explicitly granted.
By default you have no right to anything unless it's granted. If the copyright restrictions are a condition of lawful license, then you must agree to them to use the software.
The GPL exists in this way because the notice portions of the license (the bulk of the text) apply to everyone. The license portion tells you that no restrictions apply to your personal use of the software, but that certain portions of the granted rights (namely distribution) are subject to restrictions. Contrary to the text, you must accept that the license contains those restrictions and notices in order to use the software. The way that licensing law works, you cannot ignore the terms ever. You cannot say that the license only comes into effect when someone wishes to distribute, because the grant of rights occurs at the time of acquisition. The limitations must apply at the same time, or they are not valid.
Everyone must accept the GPL, because the specified method of acceptance is performance (i.e., exercising your legal rights)--there is no way to use the software without accepting, regardless of the license text's badly worded "you do not need to accept to use" which really is not a license term under contract law, but a notice that end users are not subject to the restrictions.
If you did not accept the terms of the license or the various notices contained therein, you would have to not use the software at all. Any use constitutes acceptance of the terms and restrictions and acknowledgment of the notices and disclaimers.
It's not rocket science. If a license agreement says that you agree by performance, and you perform, you've agreed. If the GPL wanted to make an exception (which it doesn't, because the owner wants all non-license portions to apply), it would have to add, "Use of this software by end users does not constitute acceptance" to its assent provision.
Parent