Mozilla Admits Firefox EULA Is Flawed

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.'"

Informational dialog

[Rinisari]

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.

Is Firefox Even Still Relevant To Worry About?

[Anonymous Coward]

With Google's amazing Chrome surging in installed base and Microsoft's IE8 looking to actually be a decent browser, Mozilla's woefully outdated Firefox singlethreaded and un-memory protected browser engine has become a joke.

Why why why?!

[Anita Coney]

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.

Re:A rose by any other name...

[itsdapead]

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

Re:It isn't the specifics... it's the principle.

[mrchaotica]

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?

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 could have otherwise gained the right to make it available to you by themselves agreeing to the GPL.

If the fact that the file is online online and can be downloaded is enough to grant me access to run it...

...and the people offering it were authorized to do so...

...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?

Yes, I think so. Whether my opinion is the legally-valid one is up for debate; case law has varied on that question.

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.

I agree completely: you should have the right to use both.

By the way, here's an example for you: What gave you the right to download and read this post I've written here? It's copyrighted just like Emacs and the ATI drivers you mentioned are. I didn't give you an explicit license to download or read it. So what's to stop me from suing you for copyright infringement (and winning), other than common sense (which, as I'm sure you know, isn't valid in a court of law)?

Re:It isn't the specifics... it's the principle.

[mrchaotica]

All EULAs start with some phrase like "You may not use this software if you do not agree to this licence." If they didn't, you wouldn't have to agree to the licence to use the software.

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.

This is the TeX argument all over again.

[chris_sawtell]

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?