![Mozilla Mozilla](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/mozilla_64.png)
![The Internet The Internet](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/internet_64.png)
Mozilla Admits Firefox EULA Is Flawed 312
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.'"
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.
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?
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.
Re:My primary question... (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You are correct. A EULA is a EULA. If they want a tool to explain the license, then they should probably opt for a preamble.
A very popular example would be the preamble to gpl2.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.txt [gnu.org]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
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...
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: (Score:2)
so...
and Lawyers dance around it jumping through the EULA Hoops?
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.
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!"
Re: (Score:2)
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!"
But these things are all already covered by applicable law.
I can't distribute copyrighted work without a license and I can't use somebody else's trademark without permission. So, there is no need for any sort of "user agreement".
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe so they can not violate it and say they didn't know?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As others have stated, you don't need to agree to the GPL in order to use GPL-licensed software. You only need to agree to the GPL if you're going to distribute GPL-licensed software.
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:2)
I always wondered about if accepting the gpl is required. If I decline the gpl license, what right does I have to use the software?
I mean I don't think I have any right to use any software, unless that right is explicit given to me.
Or is the fact that I am in possession of the software enough to also grant me right to run it?
If possession is enough, then I can also conclude that any software EULA is invalid, because I can just run the software without accepting the EULA.
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.
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.
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: (Score:2)
the GPL has nothing at all to do with simply using the software. Use of the program is covered by freedom 0 of FSF's definition of free software and by that definition, you inherently have the right to run the software and use it for any purpose. You also inherently have freedom 1, the right to study how the program works and adapt it to your needs. This is without agreeing to the GPL.
The GPL only comes in for freedoms 2 and 3, which you do not otherwise have, the right to redistribute the software and t
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"?
The GPL must be complied with, period. (Score:2)
If you do not agree to the GPL, you cannot use the software. It is as simple as that. The copyright holder allows the user to use the copyrighted material in exchange for the user's promise to abide with the terms of the license (i.e., the GPL).
This is not mere semantics (well, it is, but it's legally important semantics). This word-mechanism allows the licensor-developer-GPL guy to retain his or her copyright. That copyright is the muscle that empowers the GPL.
If you don't agree to the GPL, then you ha
Re:The GPL must be complied with, period. (Score:5, Informative)
See Section 9 of the GPL v3 [fsf.org]:
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: (Score:2)
The big deal is that you can't impose additional restrictions on the code, and the Firefox EULA imposes additional restrictions on the trademarks without making it clear that those restrictions do not apply to the code.
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: (Score:2)
If they got rid of the "I Agree" and replaced it with "Continue", "Next", or even "Skip", it wouldn't be a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You need to look up the difference between "affirm" and "permit."
This is also an excerpt from the GPL (version 3, to be exact):
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:
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
Re: (Score:2)
...and I get that a lot on things licensed under the GPL. So, therefore, the GPL is an EULA.
Many GPL applications want to display their license during installation (in the Windows world it's rather expected, and might even cause the user to wonder since there aren't any presented). Many installation frameworks automatically make that a "I agree" or "I accept" button where it should just say "Next". I don't consider it a big issue since as a user I agree to exactly nothing anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
You and I may know that, but Joe Blow installing OpenOffice for the first time doesn't. That, in my opinion, makes it a big issue.
Re: (Score:2)
The GPL itself isn't an EULA, no matter how a program may present it...
In other words, if I say "Here's my program's EULA" and I show you the GPL, that doesn't make the GPL an EULA - the GPL is about distribution, not use. All those programs that present the GPL as an EULA are wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is my point. I know the GPL isn't an EULA, but it certainly get presented as one plenty of times.
Re: (Score:2)
...and all those things are wrong.
Presenting the GPL improperly as if it were an EULA doesn't make it one, any more than driving a car off a cliff makes it an airplane!
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.
Re: (Score:2)
So they need one for the Middlemen - A MULA
err...wait a sec....
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...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I remember when Microsoft claimed their browser was so ingrained into the use of the computer it was part of the operating system...
If your browser is always running you'll only see the splash screen once a day, or less if you don't log out at night. Plus there's going to be a 'Dont show splash screen' checkbox isn't there?
Anyway, you're not having an aneurysm, it's lupus.
So. (Score:2)
I'm guessing it'll be a while.
Re: (Score:2)
That shouldn't convince you that anything useful has occurred yet, although there is certainly time for Mozilla to see the light.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that if you read the article, you'd realize you're wrong. :P
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I think this is a very good solution - I hope an enterprising denizen of slashdot can get your idea to someone at Mozilla who can do something about it....
Re: (Score:2)
Why not just a one time splash screen informing the user that the name "Firefox" and the graphics are property of Mozilla and the users should just not fuck with them under penalty of laws most people are already aware of?
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Because silly news sites often have ads that give the submitter money.
Because kdawson is still an editor here. (Score:2)
Because kdawson is still an editor here, so you've got a better chance of getting your post of an inflammatory interpretation by a talking head on the front page than the actual original material...
Agreeing to a license... that's a EULA (Score:2)
License Notification, Warranty Agreement. (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Man, they SERIOUSLY need that license notification...considering that last I checked, Firefox wasn't GPL (its MPL) and a lot of people here seem to think it is!
Re: (Score:2)
Hrm, its tri-licensed, not just MPL, whoopsies. Anyway, you get the idea.
Re: (Score:2)
It's both. And also LGPL.
Mozilla source code is (and has been for several years now) completely tri-licensed [mozilla.org]. You can choose whether to use it under the terms of the GPL, the LGPL or the MPL, or any combination thereof.
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).
Re: (Score:2)
Relevant blog posts... (Score:2)
http://lockshot.wordpress.com/2008/09/15/firefox-eula-in-linux-distributions/ [wordpress.com]
The word you are looking for is "NOTICE" (Score:2)
> 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.
Quit implying that users are entering into a contract with you. Call it a "NOTICE". Leave off the "Agree" (or whatever) clicky. If you think you have to have a clicky (you don't) label it "Acknowledge".
The fact is, though, that you don't even need a notice.
Right... (Score:2)
After reading (several independent summaries of) the firefox EULA...
I don't see why they couldn't just clean out the things that don't apply to the end-user (mostly their trademark on redistribution), replace "I agree" with "continue" and remove "I disagree". That way they can have informed the user of where to get the source code, that mozilla can't be held liable for anything firefox does (if they must - you can't sign away your rights to sue them anyway and this applies to everything in Ubuntu so that's
Whatever happened to... (Score:2, Insightful)
Help -> About?
I got it (Score:5, Funny)
License Agreement for Mozilla End-users.
What, no good?
Re: (Score:2)
The other flaw... (Score:2)
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.
Notifications of Tradmarks (Score:2)
Just call it a Notifications of Tradmarks and have it spell out what it is all about in plain English.
"You cannot use our trademark on anything but this software with out our permission".
(Continue)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If I refuse the agreement, does it mean I can delete and/or return it from slashdot?
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
hmm, mod this redundant or informative as you will, but i feel like it should be pointed out:
EULA: End User License Agreement.
firefox will be replacing this with a license agreement. for whom? the end-user ;)
but i'll forgive them, they're cute. all innocuous and stuff :)
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...
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.
Re: (Score:2)
> I think it might be this: they have no problem with you using and modifying their
> software. They just don't want you to use the Mozilla or Firefox trademark after
> you do so.
The law already covers that. Asking end users to agree not to violate the law is ridiculous.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't mix metaphors. 1984 and Brave New World have widely different warnings if you think about them deeply enough to get them.
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.