Mozilla Demanding Firefox Display EULA In Ubuntu 785
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.
Broken link in summary (Score:2, Informative)
Re:More fragmentation is definitely not what we ne (Score:3, Informative)
The EULA is a new thing with Firefox 3 it seems.
EULA is quite important (Score:5, Informative)
Re:not free? (Score:3, Informative)
if you're talking about free as in beer, then no it doesn't preclude it from being free software. but when people discuss free software in the open source sense they mean free as in speech.
EULAs, ostensibly, force users to sign away copy owner & fair use rights. such contracts go directly against the spirit of open source and free software.
EULA Contents: (Score:5, Informative)
EULA: http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/legal/eula/firefox-en.html [mozilla.com]
Summary:
Preamble - notice that the source is available and this license does not apply to the source.
1. License Grant - This license gives you the right to use the executable provided by Mozilla Corp.
2. Termination - if you breach this license, S1 is voided.
3. Proprietary Rights - again, the source code is not proprietary. The branding logos are, you don't have the right to modify them.
4. Disclaimer of Warranty
5. Limitation of Liability
6. Export Controls - you must comply with teh law.
7. US Govt End Users - 2 sentences of legal references related to employees of the US Govt using Firefox.
8. Misc, nothing interesting at all. This agreement constitutes the agreement...
Sounds like Mozilla Corp doing the bare minimum to cover their asses, in a responsible fashion, without actually affecting end users at all.
There's a bug in Bugzilla for this (Score:2, Informative)
Bug 439604 - FireFox 3.0 requires agreement of non-Free EULA
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=439604 [mozilla.org]
Maybe if a few people vote for this bug, it will bring it to the attention of whoever thought it was a good idea in the first place...
Re:Fair enough (Score:3, Informative)
Re:EULA is quite important (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Fair enough (Score:5, Informative)
"The answer of course is B."
Is that so? I've seen plenty of people who criticize that open source software will never succeed on the desktop until it's more business-like.
Re:not free? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Fair enough (Score:3, Informative)
Is that so? I've seen plenty of people who criticize that open source software will never succeed on the desktop until it's more business-like.
Ok, what are the most popular (commercial) Linux vendors? There is Red Hat which via Fedora is very in touch with the community, There is Canonical which makes Ubuntu which is very in touch with the community (overlooking the current Mozilla EULA problem), and Novell which had huge criticisms about patent issues that it was forced to become more in touch with the community. Then on the business side for the distros which seem very out of touch with the community we have: Xandros which very few people use save for the ones who haven't upgraded to a different OS on the EEE, and other niche distros which few use.
Re:Fair enough (Score:3, Informative)
Once upon a time, the same was true of Debian, and their official contact from Mozilla granted them an exception. Then, over a year later, out of the blue and in the middle of a release, a new Mozilla contact appeared, said "oh, we've decided that agreement is retroactively not valid, change what you're doing or face the lawyers", and that was that.
If they'll do it to one distro, they'll do it to two. Isn't it time Ubuntu got a browser that's certified Free software?
Re:not free? (Score:4, Informative)
when people discuss free software in the open source sense they mean free as in speech.
No they don't.
If they did, it would be released into the public domain. Instead, it is copyrighted, with the restrictions in place relating to what that particular community thinks is an acceptable "price" for use, modification, and distribution rights. Sometimes it's truly free, like that users can do what they want in terms of using GPL software, but other times, it's not, like when you want to assert a right to distribution.
The major function of a EULA is notice. The license grant and restrictions is one or two sections of a greater document. The whole notion of a 'EULA' in general is an attempt to draw a false distinction between some kinds of SLAs and others, and to give the peanut gallery a chance to mangle semantics of utterly zero legal significance. They're all essentially the same. They all take the same form and become binding the same way. Yes, even the GPL. It's a fairly standard structure: recitals, definitions, license grant, license restriction, term and termination, warranty, liability, litigation provisions, and miscellaneous (trademark/patent license terms, export terms, international law issues, etc.).
They differ only in content and the nature of the restrictions. They're all license agreements. A license is just the grant and term. What an "end user" is or whether that's the scope of the license is up to the particular agreement, and people are entirely too sloppy with their use of the term 'EULA'--to the point that it is meaningless.
All of this is to say nothing about the obvious difference between the license on the use of the source code and the license on the use of the branded binary, which are two separate products.
Re:not free? (Score:3, Informative)
but Mozilla has every right to put an EULA on compiled binaries
This isn't really about binaries, it's about branding and trademark. Since Ubuntu likely want to use the Firefox name and branding (for familiarity), they have to comply with Mozilla's demands. If they would strip the branding and call it something else, Mozilla would have no case demanding an EULA, regardless of whether the application would be distributed as binaries or source code.
Re:EULAs seem at odds with... (Score:3, Informative)
Gimp. And too many others.
Re:Fair enough (Score:5, Informative)
EULA summary (Score:5, Informative)
1. We're letting you use the software. Have fun.
2. If you don't want to use the software, don't.
3. We need to protect our trademarks, so if you change something and redistribute it, don't call it Mozilla or Firefox.
4. No warranty, get over it.
5. We're not responsible for anything that goes wrong. This actually is just a paraphrase of section 4, and like section 4, we've stated it in ALL CAPS, so you'll be sure to pay attention to it.
6. There might be laws about sending this software out of the country. Try to obey them.
7. If you're using this in a US government environment, there are certainly many laws that will regulate its use. Please pay attention to them.
8. We're doing it the California way, the UN will not be involved (thank goodness), this agreement is written in English, you can give this (unmodified) license and product to someone else, and we won't mind.
There. The important parts.
-Restil
Re:not free? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible? (Score:5, Informative)
The problem is that the official icon is more usable than the community edition icon, which still has limitations. Ubuntu didn't always ship the branded icon, but it's clear that nobody realizes at first that the firefox quicklaunch icon is a web browser. It's like a joke that requires you to call it a "world wide web broswer", or remember what WWW is supposed to stand for. But hell if I know what to do about it. A page in the NYtimes with iceweasel icons promoting open source web browsers?
It's really incredibly sad what they're doing; phoenix was an unofficial project and they had to rename the project twice in order to make this branding thing possible again.
Ah, the dreaded EULA! (Score:2, Informative)
Ubuntu Brainstorm link (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Fair enough (Score:5, Informative)
Go vote on the bug report then:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=439604 [mozilla.org]
First time clicks... (Score:3, Informative)
Another poster points out how benign the actual agreement is; so the upshot of this is a first-time clickthrough.
Why haven't people revolted against the "you're submitting a secure form" for the first time or "you're navigating to an insecure site" for the first time warnings and crap that Mozilla and others have had for ages. They're *far* more annoying than an Eula, IMHO, as there seems to be a few of them...
Such a non-issue, I doubt it'll hurt them seriously. And for those seriously freaked out, Iceweasel is an easy workaround, that makes everyone happy.
Re:GPL Compliance (Score:1, Informative)
As a long time Ubuntu user, I myself never realized until today that there are no EULAs present.
When you install ubuntu, there is an EULA-like message that tells the user about the licenses of the included software, and that the software doesn't have any warranty whatsoever.
Re:Fair enough (Score:3, Informative)
That's not the way it happened. It wasn't the Mozilla contact, it was debian's own people, pointing out that their deal with mozilla was against debian principles - debian does not allow itself to accept licenses which are specific to debian, believing this could lead to it distributing non-free stuff. (After all, that agreement meant that a user couldn't take debian, call it something else, and distribute it as a new distro, because they wouldn't have that agreement for the mozilla trademarks).
While Debian indeed does not accept software which provides freedom only to Debian and not to others (point 8 of the Debian Free Software Guidelines, "License Must Not Be Specific to Debian", reflected in point 8 of the Open Source Definition), this does not in any way relate to why Debian could not distribute Firefox under the name "Firefox".
Debian has no problem with licenses that grant additional freedoms to Debian or its users, as long as everyone has all the necessary freedoms of Free Software. Debian had no problem accepting the permission to distribute Firefox as Firefox, with the understanding that Debian users who modified Firefox would have to "unbrand" it themselves.
However, Debian shipped Firefox branded as Firefox together with the unofficial logos and other branding, because Mozilla's official logos and branding did not have a Free Software license. The aforementioned contact from Mozilla, Gervase Markham, had previously given permission for Debian to do this. However, another Mozilla contact subsequently insisted that Debian could not do this, and that they must 1) ship the official (non-free) branding and 2) run every change by Mozilla reviewers before shipping it. The second condition would make Firefox maintenance an even more onerous task, and the first would make it impossible to ship Firefox in Debian main.
As a result, in order to ship Firefox at all in Debian main, Debian had to "unbrand" it.
Re:EULA Contents: (Score:3, Informative)
Once one legally acquires software, one is legally allowed to use it as per the terms of copyright laws in most countries. Permission from the vendor is not required.
You're begging the question. Permission from the vendor is required to "legally acquire" the software. If that permission is conditional, based on what they have decided to sell, then you're right back here.
*ALL* contracts cover things which are not present or required by statutory law. By definition, that is why they exist.
This is not a right the vendor is legally able to extend under the copyright act.
Citation needed. You won't find one.
The Copyright Act specifies what both customers and owners can't do. If it's not prohibited by the Act or independently barred by some other law, it's valid. This is why no court has ever--EVER--dismissed a case or claim based solely on the fact that it existed in the form of a license agreement.
they must engage in a legally binding contract with the recipient prior to sale or transmission.
You do not need to accept terms in order to buy a box. You can purchase or otherwise legally acquire a package without having intent to use it, whether as a gift or simply for its physical components or aesthetic appeal.
Only the user asserts any rights under copyright, and only the user must accept the conditions of that use. We just had, barely a few months ago, a grounded court decision on the Artistic License--that it was enforceable just as any other software license. You don't get one without the other.
Re:not free? (Score:4, Informative)
If you approach me with a knife and I pull out a pistol and you run away I have potentially saved my life. An open mind is a good thing.
Re:not free? (Score:3, Informative)
The EULA for Firefox deals with the use of the trademark "Firefox," only. In order to keep the trademark, they have to enforce it.
The EULA in question isn't any form of trademark enforcement. If anything it might be trying to make people aware that the marks /are/ in fact trademarks. The traditional way of doing this would be to accompany them with a TM or (R) depending on trademark status, not provide a bunch of legalese nobody in their right mind is going to read anyway.
Iceweasel etc do not claim trademark, and thus don't have an EULA.
"Iceweasel" might very well be a trademark. It might not be a /registered/ one but that doesn't not make it a trademark.
But I can just make a piece of shit browser and call it "Iceweasel" and nobody can stop me.
Not until after the fact anyway. The creators of Iceweasel most certainly could sue you for misappropriating their mark and they would stand a decent chance of winning.
You are agreeing to a license not to abuse the name and logo of Firefox, not anything to do with the actual code.
It is not necessary for people to agree not to abuse trademarks - they are forbidden from doing so whether they agree or not. If this were not the case I can assure you you'd see a lot of Mickey Mouse branded restaurants across the world.
It is altogether unclear what Firefox is trying to do with this EULA. Apart from trying to divest themselves of liability, the rest appears to be pointless blather.
Re:Too corporate (Score:3, Informative)
.
The Moz Foundation has been corporate from Day 1, beginning with an infusion of cash from AOL in 2003. In 2006 about 85% of its revenues came from its contract with Google - a hefty $57 million. Mozilla Foundation [wikipedia.org]
Re:not free? (Score:1, Informative)
Opera, first run:
Opera Browser Information: LICENSE.TXT
Copyright (C) Opera Software 1995-2008
IMPORTANT NOTE
The Software, as defined below, is protected by copyright, which is vested in Opera Software ASA/its suppliers.
The Software may only be used in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in this document.
If you do not read and agree to be bound by the terms and conditions defined in this document, you are not permitted to keep or use the Software in any way whatsoever and must destroy or return all copies of these items which are in your possession.
END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT
DEFINITIONS
The following definitions apply to the terms and conditions included in this Agreement.
Opera
means a Browser, developed by Opera Software ASA, for reading and writing files to and from a network and/or file system.
Software
means Opera, all program and information files and other documentation which are part of the Opera Software package.
Individual
means a particular person.
TERMS OF AGREEMENT
This is a legal agreement between you, the users, and Opera Software ASA. By installing or using this Software, you agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. If you do not agree to these terms, you may not use or install the Software.
You are entitled to use the Software on all personal computers (laptops/desktops). "Use" means loaded in temporary memory or permanent storage on the computer.
You may not use the Software on non-PC products, devices, or embedded in any other product, including, but not limited to, mobile devices, internet appliances, set top boxes (STB), handhelds, PDAs, phones, web pads, tablets, game consoles, TVs, gaming machines, home automation systems, or any other consumer electronics devices or mobile/cable/satellite/television or closed system based service.
You may not sell, rent, lease or sublicense the Software, without the explicit written consent of Opera Software ASA.
The Software is protected by copyright laws and international treaties.
All intellectual property rights such as but not limited to patents, trademarks, copyrights or trade secret rights related to the Software are the property of and remains vested in Opera Software ASA/its suppliers.
You shall not modify, translate, reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the Software or any part thereof or otherwise attempt to derive source code, create or use derivative works therefrom.
You are not allowed to remove, alter or destroy any proprietary, trademark or copyright markings or notices placed upon or contained with the Software.
YOU EXPRESSLY ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT USE OF THE SOFTWARE IS AT YOUR OWN RISK AND THAT THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" WITHOUT ANY WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS WHATSOEVER. OPERA SOFTWARE ASA OR ITS SUPPLIERS DO NOT WARRANT THAT THE FUNCTIONS OF THE SOFTWARE WILL MEET YOUR REQUIREMENTS OR THAT THE OPERATION OF THE SOFTWARE WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR FREE. YOU ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY FOR SELECTING THE SOFTWARE TO ACHIEVE YOUR INTENDED RESULTS, AND FOR THE USE AND THE RESULTS OBTAINED FROM THE SOFTWARE.
YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE SOFTWARE IS NOT INTENDED FOR USE IN (I) ON-LINE CONTROL OF AIRCRAFT, AIR TRAFFIC, AIRCRAFT NAVIGATION OR AIRCRAFT COMMUNICATIONS; OR (II) IN THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION OR MAINTENANCE OF ANY NUCLEAR FACILITY.
OPERA SOFTWARE ASA AND ITS SUPPLIERS DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES RELATED TO: NON-INFRINGEMENT, LACK OF VIRUSES, ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF RESPONSES OR RESULTS, IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
IN NO EVENT SHALL OPERA SOFTWARE ASA OR ITS SUPPLIERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR FOR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF BUSINESS PROFITS, BUSINESS INTERRUPTION, LOSS OF BUSINESS INFORMATION, PERSONAL INJURY, LOSS OF PRIVACY OR OT
Re:not free? (Score:2, Informative)
That is bullshit. Software were trademarked before EULAs existed, and they never once lost trademark because of the lack of EULA. A simple short splashscreen with Firefox(tm) is more than enough for trademark.
Re:EULA summary (Score:2, Informative)
There is nothing there that requires agreement. It's a notice, not a contract.
Exactly. Which means what we have right here is a good ol' fashioned straw man slaughter.
If this was called a "trademark notice" instead of an "EULA", we wouldn't be having this discussion. But instead, we've got an army of people whippin' themselves into a frenzy at the sight of "EULA" that they're ranting and raving without knowing WTF they're actually ranting and raving about.