Slashdot Log In
Mozilla Nixes Firefox EULA Requirement
Posted by
timothy
on Sun Sep 21, 2008 04:33 PM
from the even-in-the-best-homes dept.
from the even-in-the-best-homes dept.
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."
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 Admits Firefox EULA Is Flawed 312 comments
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.'"
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.
First EULA (Score:5, Informative)
by reading this post, you agree to mod me to +5, Informative.
Re:First EULA (Score:5, Funny)
No mod points. Launch your lawyers.
Parent
Re:First EULA (Score:5, Funny)
May I suggest the sun as a destination?
Parent
Re:First EULA (Score:4, Funny)
Java doesn't need any lawyers. The speed of their programs are so fast th
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:First EULA (Score:5, Funny)
May I suggest the sun as a destination?
I'd suggest a black hole. Both to be really sure and because it's fitting.
Parent
Re:First EULA (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:First EULA (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:First EULA (Score:5, Funny)
May I suggest the sun as a destination?
I'd suggest a black hole. Both to be really sure and because it's fitting.
Well, I think the Sun would be a better choice. If it's true that black holes are portals to alternate universes ... well, how would you feel if the people from one of those universes sent all pf their lawyers to us? Downright unneighborly, if you ask me.
Parent
Re:First EULA (Score:5, Funny)
[Data] "The alien ship has just opened its forward hatches and released thousands of humanoid shaped objects."
[Picard] "Magnify forward viewer on the alien craft"
[Riker] "Good God captain! Those are humans floating straight toward the Borg ship with no life support suits! How can they survive the tortures of deep space ?!"
[Data] "I don't believe that those are humans sir, if you will look closer I believe you will see that they are carrying something recognized by twenty-first century man as doe skin leather briefcases, and wearing Armani suits"
[Riker and Picard together horrified] "Lawyers !!"
[Geordi] "It can't be. All the Lawyers were rounded up and sent hurtling into the sun in 2017 during the Great Awakening."
[Data] "True, but appearently some must have survived."
[Riker] "They have surrounded the Borg ship and are covering it with all types of papers."
[Data] "I believe that is known in ancient venacular as 'red tape' it often proves fatal."
[Riker] "They're tearing the Borg to pieces !"
[Picard] "Turn off the monitors. I can't stand to watch, not even the Borg deserve that."
Dredged up here [awpi.com] via Google (no idea of the original source).
Parent
Re:First EULA (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
It worked!
No, it didn't. See, he's still 20% interesting.
Darn.
Sure, they're good guys (Score:5, Informative)
If they had a desire to get this right, they would not have sprang a EULA requirement on Canonical this late into the release process (next Ubuntu release is in a couple of weeks). This is a reaction to the negative press they've been getting. Thanks, Slashdot!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That was actually what made me feel that the EULA requirement might have been disingenuous. I don't have any inside knowledge on the matter, of course--it was a Canonical matter. I am glad that things turned out smoothly though.
Re:Sure, they're good guys (Score:5, Insightful)
>If they had a desire to get this right, they would not have sprang a EULA requirement on Canonical this late
Believe it or not, the world does not revolve around Ubuntu Linux. Firefox is used in lots of other distros, not to mention MS-Windows and MacOS. I seriously doubt the timing had anything to do with anything related to any particular distro.
That aside, THANK YOU MOZILLA FOUNDATION! It was silly to require any type of pop-up to begin with, but being "big enough" to admit it was a mistake and take it off is a VERY good move. Put your license and other info under "Help"... people will see it if/when necessary.
Parent
Re:Sure, they're good guys (Score:5, Insightful)
That aside, THANK YOU MOZILLA FOUNDATION! It was silly to require any type of pop-up to begin with, but being "big enough" to admit it was a mistake and take it off is a VERY good move.
I haven't read the details yet, but I agree with this sentiment 100% - everybody makes mistakes.
The good guys are the ones who fix them in a timely fashion.
Parent
Re:Sure, they're good guys (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Sure, they're good guys (Score:5, Informative)
EULA are counter to the spirit of open and free software. Software does not require a license to use, you have the right to use software as long as you acquired it legally.
Licenses like the MPL or the GPL are for those who wish to modify and distribute software, because those activities are restricted by copyright law and the licenses are needed to allow you to do them.
EULA's are contracts that force users to give up some of their rights or regulate how they use the software beyond the restrictions imposed by copyright.
Mozilla's EULA was relatively benign as far as EULAs go but a EULA just the same. Since having a EULA means an app isn't free software Ubuntu couldn't/wouldn't include the EULA version in Ubuntu.
Parent
Re:Sure, they're good guys (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously! How dare they respond to criticism!
It was a stupid thing to do in the first place, but you've got to give them a lot of credit for reacting to the public outcry in a timely manner.
Both Mozilla and Canonical know that there's little point in fostering any sort of "drama" within the F/OSS community.
Parent
People have complained about this since Firefox 1 (Score:5, Insightful)
The EULA has been present since the first 1.0 release of Firefox, and people complained just as bitterly then. Why is it that it took a major player like Canonical to get Mozilla to finally respond to their community?
Re:People have complained about this since Firefox (Score:5, Informative)
Why is it that it took a major player like Canonical to get Mozilla to finally respond to their community?
Users can complain, but distros can do something about it by ganging up and shipping it rebranded only? Of course in the short term that's a minor issue for Mozilla but if it was established that Firefox on Linux == Iceweasel (or whatever, lousy name) and Linux becomes more popular through UMPCs and the like, Mozilla could stand to lose a lot of brand power and have no power to do anything about it. It'd be just like CentOS except the original isn't available, how long would it take for the new name to settle? Not long at all, I wager. After all, it'd still be the exact same browser down to the last bit, not like switching people to another browser. Mozilla is caving here because they got little to gain and everything to lose.
Parent
Glad things worked out. (Score:5, Insightful)
While this was certainly an issue to be concerned about, it was disappointing to see the invective and bile poured out by some on the Launchpad bug page.
I thought the informative first-run tab was a good way to go about things and I'm glad things finally got settled by sitting down and offering feedback. The best thing about the Free Software and Open Source communities is that they're communities. Coming together to work on solutions is what makes us so much stronger than proprietary software whose owners ignore their own users.
Convenience is the key (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Convenience is the key (Score:4, Insightful)
For DRM it is even worse since it will never be simpler than not having DRM in the first place, and it is rediculously easy to just record the analogue signal. Oh, but that reduces quality you say... Well, it is enough for one person to do it well and upload it to the net, and yes people WILL be able to record it well. If bored teenagers can build fusion based neutron sources in their basements, just for the fun of it, they will manage to record a khz frequency electric signal with quality degradation much lower than what the mp3 compression algorithms causes. The systematic errors could be brought down by simply using higher quality components than what most listeners bother with. The statistical errors (from thermal noise etc.. ) could be brought down by simply recording the same song several times and then combining the results.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
``"Simple" wins every time.''
Except that it doesn't. Consider the examples you gave: ``EULAs, DRM, product activation, installation, acquiring media'': all these are obstacles to be dealt with before one can simply use the product. Yet products that feature those hurdles are overwhelmingly popular. Microsoft Windows. DVDs. iTunes Music Store. Need I go on?
Re: (Score:3)
If that were true, every PC in the world would have an Apple logo on the side.
Not that I'm a fan of Apple by any stretch of the imagination, but you can't argue that their
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Convenience is just one factor among many. Convenience does not explain why anyone would switch to Firefox over from Internet Explorer.
Convenient features, like the ad-blocker plugin. Less inconvenient crashes from known exploits. It also comes back to making my life easier.
Debian (Score:4, Insightful)
Does this mean Debian can go back to using Mozilla/Firefox too?
Or would it still make more sense to implement an easily customized "installer" for Mozilla/Firefox that could be adapted to any distribution and let the distribution install the installer rather than the actual product?
Re:Debian (Score:4, Informative)
As far as i remember, Debian kicked Firefox because its logo is non-free. So i guess it is not affected by these EULA changes.
Parent
Re:Debian (Score:5, Informative)
No, unfortunately the problem with Debian is that the restrictive trademarks on the "Mozilla Firefox" name and icon conflict with the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
Mozilla wouldn't allow Debian to put the name and logo on anything that wasn't built from unmodified source from Mozilla's servers. This would have prevented Debian from customizing, integrating, and maintaining older versions of Firefox (Mozilla's response was for Debian to stop using 1.x versions of Firefox even in stable).
Canonical came to some sort of agreement with Mozilla to allow Ubuntu to continue using the name and logo with their modifications. I never heard what exactly it took to come to such an agreement.
Parent
Re:Debian (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Debian (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, Debian IS allowed to make some changes to firefox and still use the TM'ed name and logo. The issue was Debian didn't want to follow Mozilla's updated policy about it, and the PROBLEM came about that it was no longer trivial for Debian to merely change the branding information due to them braking the branding switch which Mozilla engineered specifically to make changing the branding easy. Debian could no longer merely add a compile time switch and change a couple files in a special directory, this caused them a large amount of grief to undo the problem they caused for themselves, and it came late in a dev cycle.
Mozilla's requirements were that Debian submit their changes in smaller, easier to read patches, rather than the single monolithic patch they submitted. There were also some changes Mozilla wasn't happy about. But the big problem was that it wasn't easy for Debian to change the branding due to them breaking the branding switch. Had that still been working, they'd have just turned it off and dealt with the TM issues later, although they still probably would have created their own brand because they wanted to make more changes than Mozilla would have allowed to still be called Firefox.
In the end, it was about identity, which Debian is well aware. Debian wants to protect their identity, and so does Mozilla. Mozilla will let you make changes in a distro of Firefox and still use the logos and name, but you have to abide by their rules. If you think about that, it's pretty fair. And if you don't like those rules, you can still take the code and do what you wish with it, but you have to give it your own name. I don't see that as being a bad thing.
Mozilla is actually quite amenable to use of their trademarks, so calling them "restrictive trademarks" is unfair. They're only restrictive when you run afoul of the guidelines they set out. One could say that the GPL is a "restrictive license" because it won't allow me to make proprietary changes to the code and keep them secret. The truth is that the GPL is quite permissive as long as you follow its rules. Rules are by definition "restrictive". It's unfair to label Mozilla's TM guidelines as restrictive when referring to instances where people are breaking the rules.
Parent
Re:Debian (Score:5, Informative)
The trademark policy by Mozilla is restrictive in the sense that you can't take Firefox, make any modification you wish, and still call it "Firefox". This is not necessarily a bad thing, but in the end it was not compatible with the way Debian wished to do things. What was unfortunate is that permission had already been granted and Debian was acting in good faith when Mozilla entirely changed direction.
Mozilla expressly disallowed Debian to continue to maintain Firefox 1.5, which they are required to do for Debian stable by their social contract. More explicitly, Mozilla told Debian that they refused to review any patches which Debian might submit for products that Mozilla no longer maintained. Mozilla didn't seem to be interested in being reasonable on this point. Labeling their guidelines as "restrictive" refers to the set of rules that must be followed, not the instance where rules are being broken.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The issue was Debian didn't want to follow Mozilla's updated policy about it
Mozilla's requirements were that Debian submit their changes in smaller, easier to read patches, rather than the single monolithic patch they submitted. There were also some changes Mozilla wasn't happy about.
The problem was that Mozilla could approve or deny any patch that Debian wanted to include.
The other problem is that Mozilla did not understand why Debian wanted to backport security patches to old versions. The freeze nature of Debian stable escaped them.
Re:Debian (Score:5, Informative)
I believe that Debian was prevented from accepting a similar agreement because it in some way conflicted with their ideology.
Not "in some way". It conflicts with an explicitly stated guideline [debian.org], in particular,
8. License Must Not Be Specific to Debian.
If Debian can work out an agreement, that agreement needs to be with the entire free software community; the agreement must not be limited to something named Debian (after all, if the agreement becomes invalid when someone takes that component out of Debian, then by the general consensus, that component is not free).
Parent
Re:Debian (Score:4, Informative)
>Does this mean Debian can go back to using Mozilla/Firefox too?
Probably not. The issue that Debian had is with the restrictions on the Firefox name and logo. Mozilla didn't want people to change the code and then still call it "Firefox", which is a registered trademark. As far as I know, those restrictions have not gone away, they are just not requiring a first-run pop-up with EULA agreement.
Parent
Re:Debian (Score:4, Informative)
Probably not. The issue that Debian had is with the restrictions on the Firefox name and logo. Mozilla didn't want people to change the code and then still call it "Firefox", which is a registered trademark. As far as I know, those restrictions have not gone away, they are just not requiring a first-run pop-up with EULA agreement.
Yup, it's Windows vs Linux distribution meeting head on. On Windows they have the problem that people will take Firefox, include adware/malware/trojans/viruses and distribute it as Firefox since getting random .exe files from the Internet is par for the course anyway. On Linux I never saw that problem, everyone installs it from the repositories which have the real version. Since Debian will not take Debian-specific agreements, it follows that if Debian could use the trademark everyone else must be able to as well for both Linux and Windows versions. So to protect their Windows installers, they can not let Debian use their trademark. It's strange that Firefox is the only one to feel this problem strong enough to do it, then again they have a broad userbase that's not the most technically inclined compared to a lot of other developer/server OSS tools.
Parent
I would rather they fixed the flash/pulse problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is for sure the biggest issue currently facing the adoption of Linux.
I have personally convinced 30 or so people (smart, but not especially technical) to try Ubuntu. Without fail they loved it. Even getting to grips with command line stuff (most of them have had to do similar things on windows boxes, and felt that Linux was much more elegant and sensible in this regard).
How embarrassing th
next: OpenOffice (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope Sun will take a hint from this, and stop trying to impose the LGPL as a click-through EULA in the Windows versions of OpenOffice. I teach a physics lab course where I'm trying to encourage students to use OpenOffice instead of Office. (One really practical reason is that they'll make a graph using Excel at school, email it to themselves, then try to open it at home using Excel and find out they can't, because they have an older version of Excel at home.) The really annoying thing is that when you install OOo, it forces each user to click through the EULA the first time on that machine. This is lame, because:
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's a thought, use per machine accounts instead of per user accounts and click through the EULAs BEFORE imaging the drive.
Re:next: OpenOffice (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
EULA by another name (Score:3, Insightful)
From the groklaw link: "Instead of a EULA, the new page you get on install is a notices page with no "I agree" requirement, along with a link to an optional services agreement, and instructions there on how to avoid having to accept the services, if you don't want them."
Let me get this straight. There's a popup window with legalese that includes an agreement that you have to figure out how to opt out of? So it's like a EULA, but they just assume you agree, and the "I Agree" button has been renamed "Next"?
I don't see how this is significantly different.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Everyone I know agrees that the awesome bar is exactly that, awesome.
If you didn't want the new features, why did you upgrade?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
umm, because they think it is better and a lot of people agree. I really do think that you awesome bar detractors are the odd one's out. But there's good news, it's open source, you can add or remove any features you want. And before you start going on about how you're not a programmer so you don't have the option, surely there's someone out there who *is* a programmer and who dislikes the awesome bar - get them to do it - and if there isn't, then maybe you're just nit picking eh?
Really, if you want soft
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You still haven't said why you think the awesome bar is anything other than awesome.
I really don't know what your problem is with it. But, ultimately, Mozilla decides what Firefox is.. if you don't like it, roll your own or use a competitor.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Not as annoying as your fail to use the preview button though eh? :)