Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla Demanding Firefox Display EULA In Ubuntu
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.
It's just making Ubuntu more familiar to ex-Windows users.
Blindly clicking through meaningless and offensive EULAs is standard practice in the Windows world.
Firefox is a trademark, Mozilla need to defend that trademark, and it's in Ubuntu's interests to provide a browser that people have heard about, rather than "Iceweasel", which they haven't. That, and I doubt Mozilla's EULA would be that onerous; the only people who are going to be truly upset at this are the people who hear "EULA" and kneejerk a negative response.
I write bullshit
If it bothers you, use Ice Weasel or compile it yourself without the EULA.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
I thought MPL was more of a developer's license than an EULA. I don't remember having accepted any EULA for firefox on mac or windows. Or maybe there should be one license to rule them all.
I honestly think that this won't make any difference. Personally, I think this is just Mozilla being picky, what would it matter whether or not the EULA is shown during installation, no one is going to read it anyway. Besides, anyone that actually cared about FF3's EULA would read it themselves.
Proudly posting without RTFA.
I wonder what further bad will come out of Mozilla being too corporate. It starts to look like an elegant way of getting a paycheck and less like about making a good browser.
It is inconcievable that Mozilla would face any legal problems due to a lack of EULA.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Well, I guess it's back to waiting until I've got a half dozen beers or so in me before starting an install.
kung-fu: drunken install master!
(although, you do end up with some odd games when you do that.)
In any negotiation, it's important to think about one's alternatives. At least in the open source case, there's a good alternative -- recompiling without the restrictive / undesirable parts. Sure, branding power will suffer, but this community in particular will understand.
Ever heard of BATNA?
--
Hey code monkey, learn electronics! Powerful microcontroller kits for the digital generation.
The iceweasel link should be http://packages.debian.org/sid/iceweasel
The EULA is a new thing with Firefox 3 it seems.
Game! - Where the stick is mightier than the sword!
The Firefox EULA outlines some quite important issues, not least of which is that it doesn't ship with a warranty. But what might be quite concerning to some, and is made clearish in the EULA, is that Firefox by default sends data to whatever 3rd party (Google) runs their anti-phishing. It's all to do with storing partial hashes rather than website addresses on the computer and in theory the 3rd party can't do anything useful with it and are legally required to not keep it. But some people still might find this quite concerning. More information on how Mozilla tries to make the data sent useless here: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=419117
I don't remember having accepted any EULA for firefox on mac or windows
You don't eh? Maybe you should check again
www.getfirefox.com
The EULA covers others things/features too, such as allowing Mozilla to check whether the site is a known malware site or not.
Without an EULA/something allowing Mozilla to do that, I would assume the privacy advocates/lawyers would be up in arms about.
Maybe Ubuntu could follow the Fedora lead (again) - Fedora 9, upon the first launch of Firefox 3 displayed a page informing of the features that required permission and a simple request that if the user disagreed, go into settings and turn them off...
I wonder why they're being so difficult. Firefox already isn't called like that in my OS for over a year anymore, it's "Gran Paradisio", and firefox 2 was something else that I already forgot (and don't care what it was again either). What bothers me more is that the logo is an empty globe instead of the better looking one with the fox. But so again, I wonder why they're doing that, while this isn't a problem for most other software like gimp, pidgin, inkscape, audacious, openoffice.org, KDE, filezilla, and so on. I mean, what does mozilla do so different that they have this trademark problem and the others don't?
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: http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/legal/eula/firefox-en.html
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.
...is to provide a "genuine firefox advantage" feature, that will check if your Firefox (tm) installation is genuine, and show a nasty transparent box in the corner of the screen...
I myself find EULAs extremely offensive. I have no problem with a distribution license, particularly in light of the fact it's required by copyright law if one wishes to grant (re)distribution rights. But the idea of a license accompanying a piece of data which governs its use is not something I can, in good conscience, support.
I say fork. EULAs have no place in a Linux distribution. We have come so far as a community. Why back down on our principles now?
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
Bug 439604 - FireFox 3.0 requires agreement of non-Free EULA
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=439604
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...
When Mozilla asked Debian to stop redistributing Firefox, many people complained about Debian being too idealistic. (I.e. they really didn't look into the issue at all.) Let's hear the same chorus now about Ubuntu! (Hint: It's not Debian or Ubuntu that is the problem here folks!)
It all depends upon what's in the EULA. Most EULA's have as a core piece what their software is not suitable for, which is pretty much everything.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
They're afraid of being torn to shreds by the open source community; the Firefox trademark is seen as something like a big life preserver for Mozilla. Without that trademark, they have a wide-open platform that can be duplicated, repackaged, improved upon (out of spite), etc. But people recognize the Firefox brand, and that's all they got. So ironically, they end up being afraid of their own community. Sad.
Is it just me or is Mozilla becoming rather user hostile of late? I can't get over the way they forced through the "awesomebar" even though a lot of users have complained and don't like it. (In fact people dislike it so much there are extensions dedicated to trying to get something like the old address bar back. See oldbar and hideunvisited). It just seems that every time I hear about Mozilla and/or Firefox lately it's a valid complaint someone has that the company refuses to address or thinks it knows how to handle better and is shouting down the user. Not that they've been an example of how to listen to the community but lately it feels like Mozilla has been taken over from the inside. I was really happy with Firefox pre 1.0, and have steadily gotten less happy. I still use it because I'd rather have my nuts crushed than go back to IE. However it's become more of a pain in the arse with each release. I guess the choice is between sore nuts and a sore arse.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
I'm sure Jaundiced Jackass will default to Chrome.
But ya rly. IceWeasel all the way.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
These people are insane. Who cares that i need to press agree on an eula. Why not free software? You can ship Iceweasel that is the same software. The Firefox SOFTWARE is free, not the NAME. I think it's not a big deal. Ubuntu is showing an Eula to use the Firefox brand name, not to use the Firefox software.
The problem is they allowed "community versions" of Firefox called "Firefox", then the evil did Windows downloads with spyware that technically fell within the rules. So they tightened way up. Now they're, ah, losing it.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
You're thinking beer, perhaps? Forcing end users to agree to a EULA before using a particular piece of software explicitly claims limitations on that software. I don't believe Opera (which isn't free either) required an agreement to a EULA. Though they of course retain all their copyrights and trademarks, they are non intrusive about it.
I haven't read Mozillas take on it, and why they require it to use their trademark. But it's annoying. One reason I prefer FOSS is the lack of EULAs, serial number entry and general 'stay out of the users way' attitude.
I have to admit that I scoffed when debian spun iceweasel, thinking them overly concerned with *any* encumbrance. I'm glad they did now. I don't care what name my browser takes, if it's compatible with the addons I use and works without trying to annoy me... even if it's just the first time it's used.
I'll believe in corporations having personhood when Texas executes one... - advocate_one
Off with their heads. Long live the weasel.
/'s we go.
Back to the Debian roots we go.
hi ho, hi ho, it's off to Debian
Your point doesn't make any sense. Firefox is still FOSS the source is released under a FOSS License. EULA is about END-USERS not downstream developers. It is still genuinely open-source as any other open source is. Licensing of the code itself and licensing of the binaries are two separate realms.
Agreed. Python is a trademark. And it isn't even GPLed. And it even comes installed on Ubuntu by default. How come I don't need to accept a Python EULA?
Hell, Ubuntu itself is a friggin' trademark. I don't need to accept a EULA when I install Ubuntu.
OTOH, the trademark holders of Python and Ubuntu don't require its users to accept EULAs.
Anyway, I wonder if this means that Firefox is violating the GPL? After all, Firefox itself is offered under the GPL (and other licenses) and uses GPL code, right? Doesn't the GPL state that you can't force additional restrictions?
My blog
The trademark issues with Firefox are not new. I don't think, that it is a big problem as long as I get a choice to use it or not. There are plenty of alternatives. I personally gave up on it some time ago.. Well, on the rebranded Iceweasel anyway. Pulling it up when I need to but using another browser most of the time.
Free Software, specifically copyleft software, only places restrictions on distribution. "End users" should never be troubled with an "I agree" button. Non free extentions and auto updates can be handled with permission dialogs when they happen and should never confront a free software user out of the box. Trade mark issues should be resolved at the distribution level, if at all.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
...and wrongly so, because GPL doesn't cover use, just distribution.
When Debian started doing the Iceweasel thing, I though "oh, that's just Debian being a bunch of stuck-up wankers again".
Now I'm starting to think that it's Mozilla who are the wankers. WTF, the only software on Ubuntu I've ever had to do a EULA on was Java and Flash, because I installed ubuntu-restricted-extras, and those are proprietary.
Oh well, maybe when Chrome matures...
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Sadly, unlikely physical tools which once bought are yours to do with as you please, software comes with licenses which limit its use. That's why the license a particular piece of software comes with is a crucial part in determining its usefulness. The technically best tool in the world isn't any good if you aren't allowed to use it.
Due to the perverse aberration which is copyright law, you require a license to use a program. Due to the particularly hideous nature of that perversion, this license can have pretty much any terms, and it is anyone's guess which ones are actually legally binding. And due to the maliciously inhuman nature of the aberration, the punishment for breaking these twisted contracts can be a lifetime of debt slavery. As such, being careful what licenses the software in your computer uses isn't fundamentalism, but simple common sense and a matter of self-protection; it is foolish to deal lightly with the spawn of the pits who write those treaties.
That is why I think long and hard before allowing anything that is not licensed under GPL into my computer; I'm not well-versed in the dark arts of lawyercraft, and I fear my sanity would darken were I to gaze at the indescribable horror that is found on the pages of Intellectual Property Law. Thus do I fear the consequences were I to misinterprate the filthy tomes known as EULAs.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Except you are extending FOSS to something it isn't. Firefox compiled binaries with or without EULA have no affect on the licensing of the code itself. Since Firefox's code is in fact FREE (as in freedom) and FREE (as in beer) saying it isn't FOSS is disingenuous at best. Firefox's is as free as any other open-source project (Unless you want to get in to the BSD vs. GPL freedom debate), but Mozilla has every right to put an EULA on compiled binaries, which again has no affect on the distribution license for the source code and is mentioned right at the top of the EULA.
I thought the idea of Ubuntu was to get linux adoption up - and by getting rid of Firefox, it'll just be more difficult to get people to migrate... Besides, displaying a EULA is common practice - maybe just have a big, blanket EULA when installing ubuntu - which covers all software included..
The unbranded package will have the same functionality as Firefox, and Ubuntu can cut most of the ad money Mozilla gets from Google by using it as its primary search engine. I say this is a stupid move by Mozilla, antagonizing users for no apparent gain. Besides, I still prefer Konqueror.
To do list for Windows
In a way I give you right: Ubuntu never really had the attitude to be fully FOSS. They use closed source drivers and other stuff (like flash) to make the every day usage smooth withouth much hassle. I don't see the problem as long as I have the possibility to choose my OS. I'm personally using Debian, but I see that it is not suitable for most computer illiterate people. They just want it to run and some familiar (cross platfrom) software may also help them to get a better experience / transition, whatever.
This is ridiculous. All they are asking is that we agree to a EULA about the brand. They even offer an unbranded one. Who cares, if all that they care about is the brand name?
DNA -- National Dyslexic Association
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.
Why exactly should they? I agree that EULAs are fairly minor interruptions(though their terms are often pretty nasty); but why should anybody accept an inferior experience when they could have a better one?
FFS, learned helplessness and petty nastiness are not a becoming combination.
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.
Gimp. And too many others.
Don't you see the practical point here too? Do you really want every app and every package in Ubuntu displaying an EULA and having you agree to it?
The software authors who pop up license dialogs may just be reacting to section 2c of the GPL:
If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to print an announcement.)
The first thing to come to mind to a lot of developers would be to toss the usual "I Agree" button on the bottom of the dialog.
No, they are not. From the Open Source Definition:
The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form.
No program that disallows distribution of compiled binaries is open source.
OTOH trademarks are a different beast, and demanding that you not call the modified program Firefox doesn't make it non-free (but there are other things in Firefox that do).
Its the Firefox EULA, not one from Microsoft, Apple or EA.
Pull your heads out of your ass and stop being such fanatical 'Free' nutjobs. Its all good the require that everything follow the GPL and the 'non-freedoms' that go with it, but not anything else?
For fucks sakes its gotten so damn ludicris that there are like 50 definitions of 'free' for software. And everyone argues over which is better. Let me end it for you, Public Domain is free, nothing else is, if its not public domain it has restrictions, period.
Why is it that some people think they deserve to get everything for nothing and be able to do anything they want with it without restriction? Do this people not respect other peoples right to dictate how their software is distributed, but its okay for them to restrict their own software?
To all the people who think this is just evil, fuck off, you're never going to be happy, take some zoloft or something and get out of mommy's basement.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Epiphany is a featureless, heap of junk. Don't go anywhere near it.
-- Even if a god did exist, why the fsck should I worship it?
It does allow distribution of the binaries, the license clearly allows you to compile and distribute them, thus it is still FOSS.
The only thing in the EULA that is not covered in the licensing agreement is a notification that they send details about the sites you visit to an anti-malware site, so that they can find out if the site is, well, malware.
You don't have to use this feature. But you can't use it without giving up a certain amount of privacy, because of the nature of the feature (anymore than you can hide the fact that you visit a website, because there's a log entry on the website's server)
"Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
Are you people that sad and angry that you'll complain about a ONE TIME eula popping up when opening the application?
Really now? This is a big deal / problem how exactly? Good lord, it's a EULA not a fricking activation window.
Ridiculous.
If the program does terminal interaction, make it output a short notice like this when it starts in an interactive mode: Copyright (C) This program comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `show w'. This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it under certain conditions; type `show c' for details.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html#howto
Not only that, but as you state, no Windows user would think twice about clicking through a EULA. As a long time Ubuntu user, I myself never realized until today that there are no EULAs present.
So do licenses. Guess we should complain about Ubuntu for using GPLed software too, huh?
It doesn't matter what agreements the software has. What matters is what those agreements say. I could write an EULA that simply says 'By clicking agree you agree that you can do whatever you want with this program.' By your definition, that would still be evil.
but this is a bit much.
I remember when Mozilla first decided to add an EULA to Firefox, and the coders weren't sure what the point was, except that a lot of other Windows software also had them.
My worry is, is this going to extend to the Firefox that is on the live CD (which will affect people more, due to the limitations of running anything on a live CD)?
I think the Mozilla guys are asshats about this. I'm surprised that they felt this was absolutely necessary.
Looks like the lawyers have taken over mozilla.org.
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
Well, in certain cases (see GPL 2 section 2c) displaying information about copyrights and licensing to end users is required by the GPL 2.
However there is no requirement to make an end user "agree" to the licence. Anyone who displays the information in that way is probably just copying what they are used to seeing from the proprietary world.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
But...
/usr/share/doc/*/copyright.
I neither agree or disagree and shall only post one simple fact.
-----
/base-files-4.0.1ubuntu5.8.04.2/etc# cat motd
The programs included with the Ubuntu system are free software;
the exact distribution terms for each program are described in the
individual files in
Ubuntu comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by
applicable law.
To access official Ubuntu documentation, please visit:
http://help.ubuntu.com/
-----
'nuff said.
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
Play with my webcams and lights here
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.
You do understand that free speech works exactly as you describe here? I have the freedom to write a book stating my beliefs, but that right to free speech in no way implies my book is to be released into the public domain, or that it isn't implicitly my intellectual property and subject to copyright.
Free beer and free speech are simple analogies, but be careful about nit-picking with them.
That's ironic, as the GPL specifically states you can use the software without agreeing to the GPL, it's only distributing where it applies, if I remember correctly.
-- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
Vote cast!
Climate Progress - Hell and High Water
If the reason for the EULA is to keep me from making backup copies or owning my own works created via the software, I object.
If the reason for the EULA is to keep me from embedding spyware in the software and trying to distribute my trojanized version as the legitimate version (or an "enhanced" version of the legitimate version), I do not object.
Given the frequency with which novice users are told to replace IE with Firefox on Windows platforms, if the second case were not explicitly forbidden by license, it would be common practice by evil types wishing to exploit the user community and internet at large for their own personal profit.
If taking steps to stop evil behavior that damages the internet at large makes Firefox non-free-software to RMS and his followers, I would consider that to be an acceptable trade-off.
The EULA for Firefox deals with the use of the trademark "Firefox," only. In order to keep the trademark, they have to enforce it. If the EULA didn't exist, Mozilla Corporation could lose the sole right to call a browser "Firefox." Iceweasel etc do not claim trademark, and thus don't have an EULA. But I can just make a piece of shit browser and call it "Iceweasel" and nobody can stop me. The EULA doesn't place a restriction with what you can do with the software itself, it only deals with the name and logo. You are agreeing to a license not to abuse the name and logo of Firefox, not anything to do with the actual code.
This sig has not been evaluated by the FDA. It is not designed to diagnose, treat, prevent, or cure any disease.
eat my ass you homos
You're requesting a bunch of males intimately interact with your ass. Everybody else is the 'homo'?
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Where you might just be agreeing that they're not responsible if you cause a Global Thermonuclear War by using the browser. Seriously, the point of the EULA is not to restrict the user as far as I can tell. It's to protect the Mozilla Foundation.
There's also an Ubuntu brainstorm item for this: http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/13201/
I don't care so much about the strictly legalistic side of the issue (though the enforceability of EULAs is certainly an interesting topic) as much as the very spirit of free and open source software.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
From the GPL (version 3):
"In no event . . . will any copyright holder . . . be liable to you for damages arising out of the use or inability to use the program . . ."
That's Section 16. If that doesn't cover use, I don't know what does.
The really interesting parts of the GPL are intended to apply only to distributions, which is why it's called a "distribution license." But, it has a few end-user parts in there as well. (See Section 15 also.)
Well, yeah. But they had a point, didn't they?
There is reason an EULA forces a user to give up rights, and the Firefox EULA doesn't really impose any such restrictions outside of some that are common sense or required by law in the country that Mozilla operates in.
It also informs you that some data that you may consider private is sent to the anti-phishing system servers, which is GOOD for the user to know so they can make an informed choice.
Also, if you look at GPL v3, it actually requires that you notify the user of some of the things in the EULA at startup. See: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=963567&cid=25002187
Its unfair to consider are EULAs bad, they can grant the user rights just as much as they can take them away, just like the copyright and distribution license on the source code.
GPL grants many rights and includes restrictions and most people accept that it is a reasonable distribution license and have no problem using it and meeting the requirements of it, even though some source code licenses are horrible and don't let you even see the code in some cases.
You're responding with a kneejerk reaction based on the typical evil EULA, why not take a more reasonable approach and read the EULA before you decide its evil.
Guns can be used to kill people. They can also be used to save people. They still have their place in our world when used in a certain way. EULAs are no different. They can be good, they can be bad, and they also do have a place in the world when used in a fair manner.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
What about Swiftfox? I've been using it over regular Firefox for quite some time now.
Wait. If accepting the EULA means agreeing not to abuse the Mozilla Firefox brand, does that mean I can abuse it if I don't agree? Of course not.
This EULA serves no purpose, Mozilla is basically asking Ubuntu to "say uncle".
But... the future refused to change.
Man, oh man, I do NOT understand the problem here. If you want the government to protect your name, you have to play by their rules. One of the rules is that you MUST, MUST, MUST control the quality of the software distributed under that name. Whether you like it or not, Mozilla feels that they must use a EULA to protect the quality of software named Firefox(tm).
Don't like it? Run Iceweasel, whatever the hell that is. It may be something, it may be nothing, you have no idea because they're not defending it as a trademark.
Trademarks are perfectly compatible with Open Source and Free Software. Don't like Mozilla's rules for calling it Firefox? Fine. Call it Iceweasel and you then become responsible for the quality (or not) of the software.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
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.
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
If you see that anywhere, then file it as a bug. Seriously - the GPL is not an EULA. If the user does not agree, that does not affect their right at all to use the software.
A not intrusive and well displayed EULA should be in the default homepage of ubuntu's firefox. Just like any other browser's EULA should be -- in the 'run once' page.
signature is pants
Why should you have to click it in the first place - with Linux, the licensing agreement is made when you download, install and use the contents of the RPM file. You accept that you are using the software at your risk, and you don't violate the pre-defined licensing agreement (GNU, BSD, whatever).
These EULA's seem to be getting everywhere - Fedora has the "agree not to develop WMD's" clause in the license agreement.
Some universities even have online one-click agreements for students registering online.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
it seems that mozilla took their sweet time to make the request.
case or not, why didnt they care until now? ubuntu is hardly a new distro anymore, and mozilla corp isnt exactly new to this...so what gives?
By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. -- George Carlin
Most people who hear of "free software" hear it in the same context you hear about free trials, free introductory period, free fries with the purchase of a regular entree, or free beer if you sign up for our newsletter. People think of free as "meaning no payment necessary if you agree to something else." This isn't even misleading, since once they hear the "catch" is that you typically have allow redistribution of any source code you happen to write, their first thought is "what is source code?" and it's shortly followed by "suckers!"
In context, where people regularly discuss Open Source Software, the term free means "probably GPL, but maybe just some other common OSS license." For clarity, I usually refer to OSS, or even Open Source Software to make sure that people understand my intent, but expecting a community that regularly discusses GPL and Apache licensed software to switch to something more complex is a little overoptimistic.
On the good side, most OSS is Free as in price as well, and people do like free stuff.
B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
I don't see the point of an EULA on GPLed software, sorry -- this is at best a a bug.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
I say give the user the choice to take off Epiphany/Ice Weasel if they are installed by default and have the user install Firefox if they want to. I would rather Canonical go with Iceweasel than Firefox as it is more compatible with Firefox.
They waited until an inconvenient time to improve the chances that Ubuntu would agree to their demands rather than changing the browser.
The difference is that the GPL only applies to people who modify the software. Ordinary users don't have to agree to the GPL just to use the software. So, most software in Ubuntu doesn't require the user to agree to anything.
I'm not surprised that Mozilla has this stance at all.
Firefox was originally called Phoenix, then Firebird; each name was ditched after some other company got all angry and litigious. With "Firefox" they trademarked it to save themselves from getting burned again; this action is in line with that end.
Yes.
In fact, this was exactly why Debian rebranded the browser as Iceweasel.
Actually, Epiphany is an excellent browser, and would make an acceptable default. Then Ubuntu could offer Firefox in its repository for users to download as they please. Now it's reversed with Firefox as the default and Epiphany as a choice. That way, Ubuntu maintains its concept of "purity" while users can decide for themselves if clicking through a EULA is worth the price. I actually use both browsers.
It isn't "what people think that the words mean" it is what they actually really mean. GPL is not free software. It is protected by copyright. You can not do anything you want with it unless you adhere to the rules. If it were free there would be, you know, no rules. It would be truly free. Public Domain == Free. GPL Public Domain.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
"Guns can be used to kill people. They can also be used to save people."
No, guns can only kill (or not-quite-lethally wound, if you're a *very* skilled and extremely lucky shot). That's why handgun safety rules say you should never point a gun at something you don't want dead.
The best case outcome is that in a combat situation, where one creature is about to die anyway, you can choose to kill something you don't care about; trade one life for another. That's the closest a gun can come to 'saving a life'.
And you can only get that fake 'life saving' effect if you are truly prepared to remain completely emotionally unattached to the impact of the death of the living creature you shot. Doing that doesn't come without psychological consequences.
A simple first aid kit, on the other hand - that can *really* save lives, in a non-zero-sum way.
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
If it didn't cover use, you wouldn't be able to use it. All the warranty and liability sections and everything else applies to use just as much as it does to distribution.
GPL'd software is copyrighted software. You do not have the right to possess, perform, reproduce, modify, distribute, or display copyrighted works without acquiring such rights from the copyright holder. The GPL is what gives you those rights and so it by definition must cover use. That it imposes no particular restrictions or requirements (beyond your acceptance of no owner liability and no warranty of any kind) is in itself significant.
I dont understand why this is such a big deal. Ubuntu should just display the license. Users will click accept, and continue on their merry way. What would an EULA really DO that is so life changing?
Well okay, the Firefox source might be free software, but it's still correct to say that Firefox (i.e., the binary that people install) isn't free software. This is just like what happened with Google Chrome until they fixed their licence - sure, someone could compile the source code and install/distribute that, and that version would be free software. But that doesn't mean the binary version is.
This is important - for example, it wouldn't be possible for Firefox to include source taken from other GPL projects. That would be possible if Firefox was free software (it's one of the whole points of it, after all). However, I believe they can't release a binary with extra restrictions imposed on it.
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.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Of course the GPL forces to developers to sign away rights ostensibly in order to protect rights for redistribution and modification of source code. However, there is nothing in the GPL that prevents me from slapping a click through EULA on Gimp that says, "everything you make is mine." It does go against the spirit, but I'd say that a click through EULA that says, "Everything you make is Creative Commons" would be completely in the spirit of the FSF and the GPL.
I'm sorry, but isn't this something that Canonical alone should be agreeing to if they're the one's whose right to use Firefox's name and logo is at risk?
I don't see the point in forcing users to agree to this, just so some company that said users have no official relationship with can retain the right to use Firefox's name and logo.
As a Firefox user, I think this is idiotic.
People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
They differ only in content and the nature of the restrictions. They're all license agreements.
The GPL is not binding, nor is it an agreement. You are free to ignore it. The problem with EULAs is that they try to impose extra restrictions on you simply by using it. The GPL does not - rather, it grants extra freedoms (which, incidentally, is where the word "free" comes in) that wouldn't otherwise be allowed under copyright law.
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.
sigs are hazardous to your health
This is incorrect. No license is required for use as the ordinary operation of a computer program is given an exemption under copyright law. If I write a program and give you a copy, you do have the right to use it without any special license. You do not have the right to make derivative works, modify it, give others copies, etc.
However, copyright does not restrict companies from using contract law in the dissemination of their products. It just so happens that *everyone* uses EULAs in proprietary software; you can't get a copy of a program from a company without agreeing to the license, but the license is by no means required.
You can even put a EULA on a book if you want, but we wouldn't stand for that (or would we?). For some reason we stand for it when it comes to software.
Flamebait much?
Trademark law allows people to use the trademark when referring to a product. I can use the mark "Windows XP" for example when I'm referring to the MS product without permission of any sort. But, you must be referring to the product, not something which is similar to the product unless authorized to do so.
The difference is that when Amazon is doing it they are selling the product and the person would get the EULA when they open the box and agree. Amazon is just the distributor of the software, not involved in the licensing between the purchaser and the developer. And more importantly Amazon doesn't strip the EULA or modify the product.
Trademarks are often used as a means of consumer protection. Recently I got a new job with a new insurance company. The new insurer's name contained the name of my previous insurance company. Now with trademark enforcement, I know that they have to be affiliated or in some fashion licensed to use the mark. Without it, they could just be using the mark as a means of tricking people.
Coca-Cola is one of the most heavily enforced trademarks in the world. That doesn't mean I have to accept a EULA every time I open a can of it. I don't see why Firefox is different from that.
You mean back to the good old days when the kernel could barely self-host and you had to bit edit to get things to boot off a IDE hard drive?
Ah, those were the days.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The GPL is not binding, nor is it an agreement.
If it's not binding, it's not enforceable. If it's not an agreement, then you have the full right to use, modify, and distribute as per the license grant--since you never agreed to perform a return act in consideration for those rights.
You are free to ignore it.
I believe the FSF and the courts disagree. Moreover, the developers disagree--if you can ignore it, you can ignore the limitation of liability and the warranty disclaimer.
The GPL does not - rather, it grants extra freedoms (which, incidentally, is where the word "free" comes in) that wouldn't otherwise be allowed under copyright law.
Nonsense. Under copyright law, on a daily basis, I negotiate and grant distribution rights to licensees. Under copyright law, I draft letters about GPL enforcement. Under copyright law, copyright holders are allowed to sell or license however much of their work they wish to.
IANAL, of course. But as I understand U.S. law, congress limited free speech with regards to copyright. So, GP is right. Most people do mean "free as in speech".
Before you even get to install the OS, or use it for the first time if preinstalled, you get a prompt "This is the GPLv2 which you must agree to in order to use most of the software on this CD or system.
The eighteen tabs above represent all the other licenses required by any software on this CD. None of them will keep you from being able to use and modify the source code. None of them require any payment. You may agree to or decline them individually, or select All here. [All][Agree to GPLv2 and Next]"
Eighteen is of course, a random number I picked to represent what would require actual research on behalf of a distributor. If there are far more (unlikely) then they could be subgrouped into "Free to use, redistribute only with restrictions" and "Free to use, free to redistribute only with credits" and "Free to use, redistribution requires other arrangements."
I've seen some similar agreements required for installation of various distributions and I know there is at least one, usually more, required for installation of a Windows system. We're not talking really onerous requirements here. By getting the agreements up front, at installation, Ubuntu could cut out almost all the hassle as they decide to use other software with standard license agreements.
Oh, and not to let a nit go unpicked, ls and cd are part of bash, so even if in some crazy world you could get to the point where you had to agree to a EULA before launching bash, you wouldn't have to agree to it again to run other portions of the same program.
B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
Firefox displaying the EULA is pretty ridiculous, since the GPL isn't an EULA. It's as if the Mozilla foundation figured "Microsoft does it. Apple does it. Opera does it. We have to do it!"
Even if they don't have an EULA, and the GPL pretty clearly indicates they can't have a meaningful EULA, they can at least 'pretend' to have a EULA like the 'big boys' do. It's like a corporate inferiority complex. I've been losing a lot of faith in the Mozilla foundation. They're going in the wrong way, emphasizing fluff and bloat.
Plus, awesomebar.
If it's not an agreement, then you have the full right to use, modify, and distribute as per the license grant
Yes, exactly.
I believe the FSF and the courts disagree. Moreover, the developers disagree--if you can ignore it, you can ignore the limitation of liability and the warranty disclaimer.
No, it's stated: "Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies. You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program."
The limitation of liability does not require you to agree to anything (since the user might not agree), it's provided for information. If I sell (or give away) a product with no warranty, I don't require the user to agree.
Under copyright law, on a daily basis, I negotiate and grant distribution rights to licensees.
This is why I said would not otherwise be allowed. Obviously, those rights can be granted. That's the point. That is just what the GPL does. This isn't want an EULA does (at least, the ones that people criticise).
congress limited free speech with regards to copyright.
No, Congress did no such thing, because free speech has never covered appropriation of the speech of others. The only such restriction is an administrative, not Congressional, one, and it pertains to the intricacies of independent creation.
Most people do mean "free as in speech".
They can't, because then there is no distinction between "free" and proprietary software.
Developers are "free as in speech" to release their work in whatever form they want. "Free" software has limits on it too--just different limits.
"Free as in speech" is a reference to the concept of liberty, but it's a faulty one, because they're not opening up--they're doing so in exchange for something, which is neither gratis nor libre.
If it's free software, the user has the right to modify the software to not include an EULA.
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
I think the answer for Ubuntu is to reject the EULA and compile a browser that makes the Google disclosure opt-in, and is called something other than Firefox.
Yes, exactly.
Yes. You've just declared the GPL unenforceable.
So I don't have to contribute code, because I've already got a license, with no terms that I had to agree to, and you've said it's not binding anyway, so I've got the grant without the restrictions, because you can't impose restrictions on a grant, except in scope, unless you have an agreement.
This really isn't rocket science.
No, it's stated: "Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies.
It can say whatever it wants. That doesn't change what it is. If you do not accept that your right to distribution is limited, you have no license.
If you have to agree to do something in exchange for a right, it is an agreement.
That sentence is simply to inform you that you have no obligations as a user--not that you haven't assented to the license agreement. It's badly worded and utterly ignorant of licensing law
If I sell (or give away) a product with no warranty, I don't require the user to agree.
You most certainly do. You state your terms, and by going through with the transaction, they've agreed to be bound by them.
If they did not agree, then you can't enforce those terms against them, and you then can be sued for breach of warranty.
This is why I said would not otherwise be allowed.
You miss the essential point: copyright law is what makes these possible. Copyright law must be open to modification in order to make the GPL possible.
That is just what the GPL does. This isn't want an EULA does (at least, the ones that people criticise).
Neither the GPL nor a "EULA" does anything different from the other. Both grant rights and enact restrictions based on the exclusive rights held by a copyright holder. The copyright holder is under no obligation to surrender any portion of those rights to you, except under the terms they provide, with a few caveats. If you'd care to submit a provision from a EULA that isn't a restriction on scope and that you find objectionable, I'd be happy to discuss it.
They all take the same form and become binding the same way. Yes, even the GPL. I...They differ only in content and the nature of the restrictions.
That is completely wrong.
Copyrights do not become binding when the user agrees to it. Copyrights are binding the moment the author puts the copyright on the work. Nobody has to agree, it is always in effect against everyone in the world who lives in a country that supports international copyright law. This is a vital difference, not a semantic one. It is why copyrights should not be displayed in such a way that the user is given the choice to agree or disagree. The user cannot agree, and cannot disagree. The license doesn't even affect them until they try to copy the work.
If it was possible to display a copyright notice when someone copied something: burned it to a CD, copied it across a network -- then it would make sense to display the message.
What about Seamonkey? I've made it the default browser, mail client, irc client, html editor for Linguas OS (not that other tools can't be added, of course). Kills several birds with one monkey. Works great. Are they going to ask for a eula for Seamonkey?
-- tonybaldwin.me
Wrong. USC title 17, section 117(a):
In other words, regardless of what commercial software companies might like you to believe, using a program does not require a copyright license.
I use Ubuntu and while reading this post I thought to myself maybe it's time to start using Opera, so I installed it and the very first thing that appeared was their EULA! Doh!
these people need a damned clue by four. What does clicking magically make Firefox IE?
The reality is, the EULA covers the Trademark. The only time this comes into play as a licensing requirement is when someone tries to USE the name "Firefox" in conjunction with a web browser.
End users will just simply USE the product in question. Distributors are a different matter. You don't need END USERS to agree to not misuse their trademark- they don't really count all that much and it's very, very silly to make someone do it other than as a vehicle to FORCE the distributions to package it precisely as the Firefox team want it to be done because it's very annoying for the EULA piece to begin with.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
You do realize that what the GPL says is completely different, right? You don't have to agree to the GPL to use GPL software: the person who gave you the software does. Regardless of whether EULAs are valid, the GPL doesn't try to push itself on the users. It does push itself on redistributors, but then that's the only legal way to grant redistribution without revoking the copyright on the software completely. In short, the GPL notice is an advertisement. It's not an attempt to force a contract.
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
Major Fail.
Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
I was really happy with Firefox pre 1.0, and have steadily gotten less happy. I still use it because I'd rather have my nuts crushed than go back to IE.
Then how about Seamonkey? It's got all the goodness of the Mozilla browser without the Windowsy handholding and lecturing that's crept into Firefox over the versions.
iceweasel
And I just assumed that you have a copyright system in the US because congress chose to use that power. As such, it looks to me like a congressional decision, not an administrative one.
And free software developers are not nessescarily doing something "in exchange for something" -- if I write a piece of software and release the code under the GPL, you can use it without asking me, telling me or giving me anything. That is, at the very least gratis. I would say it also qualifies as free, if you look only on the user side of the issue. Now, when we talk about distribution, the accuracy of "free" is more dubious.
Oh, you tickle me so. 17 USC is a copyright license; it establishes conditions under which a copyright holder cannot sue--in other words, statutory license.
Further, 17 USC 117(a) doesn't establish legal possession of a copy or a license of copyright, but only that one who already HAS legal possession is not guilty of infringement by copying it into RAM. It has no bearing on whether you have permission to use the work in the first place, which is the issue here.
This addition was a direct response to court decisions holding that software could not be copied to and from memory under the default statutory scheme. It was passed in the early 80s, when computers were new and judges uncertain where the future was heading.
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
And I just assumed that you have a copyright system in the US because congress chose to use that power.
No, we had a copyright system in the US long before Congress existed. We also have a copyright system in this country independent of federal law, and if Congress were to stop using that power, the states would codify common law copyright. Of course, Congress is legally obligated to maintain the system as a signatory of Berne.
As such, it looks to me like a congressional decision, not an administrative one.
Again, please refer back to my previous post. The only free speech ramification pertains to the subject of independent creation and is an administrative (and judicial) creation, not a Congressional one.
Now, when we talk about distribution, the accuracy of "free" is more dubious.
And therein lies the problem. Gratis is pointless--there are plenty of gratis proprietary titles.
One of the reasons I avoided Java and anything related for so long (still do out of habit) was all that EULA nonsense you had to go through to install it. If Firefox is going down this route then I definitely think Ubuntu should withdraw it from the standard distribution. Nothing to stop them listing it as a recommended application, but these days I expect to be able to install an OS and boot up a browser without any hassle. So if Firefox is going to be taken out of Ubuntu what is going to replace it?
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
I've been twittered. Hooray!
I don't recall seeing any of that verbage in the EFF or GPL.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Are you really this dense or just trolling?
... based on the exclusive rights held by a copyright holder." They only enact restrictions on the rights of the purchaser. The GPL, on the other hand, does not enact restrictions on the rights of the purchaser, and instead "grant rights ... based on the exclusive rights held by a copyright holder."
If you don't agree to the terms of the GPL (which is cool), then you get all your rights under copyright law. You received the program for free. You are allowed to copy it for personal "fair" use. You are allowed to make copies sufficient for the program to run. You don't need to agree to anything to maintain your rights under copyright. Thus, it is not a user license. The GPL explicitly states this and your freedom to not accept the license and continue using the product. A developer cannot sue you for simply using a GPLed program without accepting the license.
If you want to distribute, though, you need to agree to the terms of the license because these rights aren't given to you under copyright law.
An EULA, on the other hand, requires agreement to use the program, or you will need to return the program for a refund.
Finally, EULAs in general don't "grant rights
Neither the GPL nor a "EULA" does anything different from the other.
Congratulations. You have equated polar opposites. You are now ready for public office.
Put identity in the browser.
You get a World Class browser for free as in you don't have to pay one red cent for it. They have to put notice up to ensure they can defend their Trademark in a court of law. They have to put up notice so they can keep dipshits who decide to use to run a fucking Nuclear Reactor from taking the to court ie:NO WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, and other such matters and you asshats bitch because you have to click accept? Give me a fucking break, talk about a bunch of ungrateful swine.
Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!
Should probably do something about OpenOffice portable (windows) showing the GPL as if it was an EULA when you intall it...
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
Only showing an EULA once is ridiculous.
1) As many have pointed out, most people will 'click-through' the 1st time they see a license, not reading it at all. Showing the license multiple times, maybe each startup, or maybe every 5 minutes, helps to ensure that users know their obligations as users, and don't infringe on Mozilla's God-given trademark.
2) What happens on internet Kiosks, libraries, schools, etc? You can't only show the EULA once, as the sys admin will be the only one to know of their obligations, and none of the real users will know.
3) With so much pop-up advertising in web CONTENT, is it really too much to ask for our web browser to start demanding some recognition as well?
I KNOW SOME PEOPLE ARE ALSO PISSED OFF AT MOZILLA'S USE OF ALL-CAPS IN THEIR LICENSE, BUT HONESTLY, WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT IF IT SLOWS DOWN READING A BIT AND MAKES IT LOOK LIKE YOU'RE REALLY FUCKING SERIOUS ABOUT YOUR EULA, AS MOZILLA CLEARLY ARE?
I therefore argue for an EULA popup every 5 minutes.
Of course I myself will no longer be using Firefox. Back to konqueror I suppose. It would be good if someone would write some Gtk2 wrappers for webkit.
You don't need to agree to anything to maintain your rights under copyright.
You need to agree that the GPL, which came with the product, does not give you a right to distribute, even though distribution is one of the rights granted.
The GPL explicitly states this and your freedom to not accept the license and continue using the product. A developer cannot sue you for simply using a GPLed program without accepting the license.
He can't sue you because he's granted you the license. You are not free to refuse the text of the license--it provides notice to you of essential terms: warranty disclaimers, limitation of liability, notice of no right to distribute.
If you want to distribute, though, you need to agree to the terms of the license because these rights aren't given to you under copyright law.
Your agreement is based on your use of the software. It says so explicitly. You are not free to ignore the license at any time after downloading the software.
If you could ignore it, it would not be enforceable. There is a difference between not being restricted and not being applicable, and it's one you don't seem to be getting.
Finally, EULAs in general don't "grant rights ... based on the exclusive rights held by a copyright holder." They only enact restrictions on the rights of the purchaser.
No, because a SLA is the only way the seller is willing to convey the work to you. Let's take a look.
"Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:" 17 USC 106.
To do and to authorize. In whatever form they elect to do so.
In other words, if it's not prohibited in 107 et seq., the copyright holder can do it. That includes authorizing reproduction, performance, and distribution with whatever limits the copyright holder chooses to enact, barring independent illegality. The copyright holder can choose to do so in the form of an abdication of copyright (public domain), a blanket grant of certain rights (license grant), a grant of certain rights for certain purposes (limited license grant), a grant of rights in exchange for a return promise by the licensee (a license agreement), or a sale or transfer of those rights to a third party (assignment).
If there is any right being granted on the condition of a return promise, then it is an agreement. Full stop.
If the authors of the GPL wished to grant a pure license, there would be a separate document containing a separate grant of the distribution right. By including them in a whole, the entire grant then becomes subject to the agreement of the restriction--if no agreement is required, then the document grants the right of distribution, and, having no return promise, the copyright owner cannot compel contribution of source code. That the restriction only applies in a certain circumstance is immaterial. All users must agree not to distribute without sharing source code, whether they intend to distribute or not, because it is part of the conveyance.
That is completely wrong.
Copyrights do not become binding when the user agrees to it. Copyrights are binding the moment the author puts the copyright on the work.
Nobody is talking about when the copyright becomes binding. You appear to have missed something in your rush to declare someone wrong.
...Why is it no longer "Free Software?" It's still free, isn't it? I'm being serious here. I honestly don't understand why there's a difference. Firefox is still free and open-source, even though it has a EULA. Could someone explain, to someone who's never used Linux in their life?
I have been using Debian for many years. Enigmail is one of the greatest packages. It integrates GPG with Seamonkey and Thunderbird. I used it for years with the Mozilla Suite and then Iceape (Debian rebranded Sea Monkey Suite). Recently, after an update, it stopped working with Iceape. Many of us have discussed this in the bug reports, but fixing it seems like a low priority. I am thinking of switching to pure Sea Monkey just to get it back.
Organization: alphabetical, sometimes numerical or messy
> The EULA for Firefox deals with the use of the trademark "Firefox," only. In order to keep the trademark, they have to enforce it. If the EULA didn't exist, Mozilla Corporation could lose the sole right to call a browser "Firefox."
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.
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does. -- GPLv2
All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated conditions are met. This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program. The output from running a covered work is covered by this License only if the output, given its content, constitutes a covered work. This License acknowledges your rights of fair use or other equivalent, as provided by copyright law. -- GPLv3
Several courts have completely disagreed with you, by the way.
Put identity in the browser.
1. License Grant - This license gives you the right to use the executable provided by Mozilla Corp.
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.
2. Termination - if you breach this license, S1 is voided.
This is not a right the vendor is legally able to extend under the copyright act. If the vendor seeks this right, they must engage in a legally binding contract with the recipient prior to sale or transmission.
Several court cases testing the GPL have found that both 1 and 2 are enforceable. Still, a shame, now I suppose at my next upgrade, I'll have to install a different browser, as I will not click accept on any EULA. At least not until the courts realize these should not be legally enforceable.
GPL is probably considered a redistribution license, but if someone runs afoul of it, it revokes the license a\nd thus is also a EULA. I know, sounds like a stretch, but remember you have to consider that we are talking about lawyers and judges here. They live in a different world where words don't necessarily mean what we might think they mean. I sure wish NYCountryLawyer would comment on this. He'd have the right spin.
I use both Windows and Ubuntu at home and work. The idea that firefox is nearly blackmailing Ubuntu this late in the release cycle with a EULA is enough to make me stop using Firefox altogether. If someone starts maintaining an up to date Iceweasel for Windows, I will start using this. Send Mozilla a message that this is not acceptable.
So you're obviously trolling or ignorant and have never read the GPL. It's a distribution license, not a use license.
And you've never been to law school. A distribution license is a use license.
"Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted"
Did you read that? Each one is a use of an exclusive right. By excluding "running" from any restrictions, they are providing you with the terms of the license: an unrestricted license to run, and restricted licenses to copy, modify, and distribute.
Several courts have completely disagreed with you, by the way.
No, not at all. In fact, we just had Katzer to validate everything I just said. Your confusion notwithstanding, this is all relatively straightforward.
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...
You should post this on /b/ too. Everyone knows the best way to win an argument on the internet is to call for /b/lackup from people who won't bother to check up on the other side of the argument.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
I was thinking more along the lines of a gun shooting the deer I'm not fast enough to run down on foot, providing a meal for my starving family and myself.
As far as arguing psychological consequences, I'll tell you what ... you get killed because you didn't fire the gun and the *insert whatever you want here* killed you and I'll be happy to live the rest of my life knowing I killed *insert item above* instead of being killed.
Your first aid kit on the other hand is also capable of killing someone, if you want to just play devils advocate.
I realize your an anti-gun nut, but if you're going to argue the point, at least have a argument thats a little stronger than a wet noodle to make it worth my time.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Since Jacobsen v. Katzer had nothing to do with what you're talking about, I'm going to stop feeding the trolls.
Put identity in the browser.
My first thought: What the fuck IS this shit?
I don't remember ever having to agree to a EULA with Firefox; I thought the licence was to be found elsewhere and the guidelines only applied if you were redistributing or modifying builds yourself. It all seems quite strange, because I thought Mozilla and Ubuntu devs were working closely together, and you would think there wouldn't be a reason for this sort of nonsense as a result.
It's not going to keep me from using Firefox, which I've used religiously for about four years, but it is disappointing.
What is the difference between this new unbranded "abrowser" package and Iceweasel, other than having a different name? I thought Iceweasel was meant to be exactly what abrowser claims...
Katzer had nothing to do with the structure and means of enforcement of open source license arrangements?
I'm sorry, I must have stepped in a strange parallel universe.
Or you're just an idiot with no reading comprehension.
Put identity in the browser.
Everyone is talking about when copyright becomes binding. You are simply attempting to talk around it.
I write a poem. I hand you the poem. By default, there are no natural or moral restrictions on what you can do with that material. Copyright law however, imposes restrictions upon what you may do with it. If Copyright law does not impose a restriction upon what you would like to do with the material, then you retain your natural right to do whatever that may be.
Those rights exist without any license agreement or EULA or any kind whatsoever. If you have acquired copyrighted material of any kind legally, you have rights to use that material by default without the need for any agreement from the copyright holder whatsoever.
If that material is software, I might also offer a license agreement that relaxes the restrictions imposed upon you by copyright law such as the GPL. Simply because that is the case does not magically require that individuals who have no need of that agreement be bound to enter into it. The only time the two would be connected is if I required the user to agree to a license agreement in order to legally obtain the material in the first place (EULA). If there is no EULA, there can be no restrictions beyond those imposed by copyright law because an end-user is under no obligation to enter into an agreement with the copyright holder to exercise rights they already have.
With something like, you know, a blue "e"?
Am I the only one who finds it refreshing clicking an agreement that gives me more rights then it takes away? I think with the amount of proprietary creep-ware out there clicking on the occasional open source license and copyright notice is the least of my worries.
Quack, quack.
This is a very valid point, and should be modded up. Every software author and project is entitled to the same rights Mozilla is asking for. A better solution needs to be created, such as a single catch-all "no warranty" EULA one must agree to when installing a distribution for the first time, that applies to all packages within that distribution's repository.
Perhaps something along the line of a "General Public EULA" that software authors could choose to adopt. I'm not entirely sure how this differs from the license in general, however.
Nor am I, when I can help it, but maybe I should be a bit more prolific with my use of the Joke tag.
There was a shitstorm over the whole controversy, but the specific issue of making "apt-get install firefox" install iceweasel instead hasn't really been much of an issue. Once Debian decided to pull firefox from their repository and replace it with iceweasel, turning the 'firefox' package into a transition package with no files that exists solely to depend on the 'iceweasel' package was the obvious thing to do.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
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.
Does it not bother you that you're making broad statements about EULAs that don't apply in the slightest to the "EULA" that we're actually talking about?
Or are facts merely an inconvenience that impeded ranting?
'a';DROP TABLE users; SELECT * FROM DATA WHERE name LIKE '%'... if you're reading this, it didn't work.
I don't believe Opera (which isn't free either) required an agreement to a EULA.#
Actually, if I'm not mistaken, Opera displays an EULA the first time you run it.
Wrong. Here are the relevant snippets from ther license itself.
GPL v.2, section 0: "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope."
GPL v.3, section 9: "You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program."
I write a poem. I hand you the poem. By default, there are no natural or moral restrictions on what you can do with that material.
No. You're glossing over the part where copyright engages. You write a poem. It is entirely yours to control. By default, there are no natural or moral restrictions on what you can do with the material, having created it yourself.
Now you come to the "handing" off. What are you surrendering? Certainly not authorship or attribution, artist's rights that always remain with the work. Are you handing off ownership? Sometimes. Are you providing it conditionally? Almost always.
"Because you can't physically stop me" is never a justification for an act in a society. I do not subscribe to your view that a creator has no natural right to his creations. It's textbook cognitive dissonance.
If Copyright law does not impose a restriction upon what you would like to do with the material, then you retain your natural right to do whatever that may be.
This applies to the author, in whose body is vested a full set of rights.
"Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following" 17 USC 106.
In other words, if it's not prohibited in 107 et seq., the copyright holder can do it. That includes authorizing reproduction, performance, and distribution with whatever limits the copyright holder chooses to enact, barring independent illegality. The copyright holder can choose to do so in the form of an abdication of copyright (public domain), a blanket grant of certain rights (license grant), a grant of certain rights for certain purposes (limited license grant), a grant of rights in exchange for a return promise by the licensee (a license agreement), or a sale or transfer of those rights to a third party (assignment).
If there is no EULA, there can be no restrictions beyond those imposed by copyright law because an end-user is under no obligation to enter into an agreement with the copyright holder to exercise rights they already have.
This is correct, if the author chooses not to impose additional or different license terms. But in the case of most software, the authorization comes in the form of a conditional grant, without which, you have no rights to the work whatsoever.
I'll call that bluff. Point out to me any except of the opinion that's contrary.
Here's a link: http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?fn=_top&rs=WLW8.09&rp=%2Ffind%2Fdefault.wl&mt=NewLitigator&vr=2.0&sv=Split&cite=535+F.3d+1373
If you've got the authority to make such a claim, this link should open right up for you. Since, however, you are clearly both not a lawyer and utterly wrong, I guess this settles it.
Right, and the kickback against all this is really about pop-ups and the lack-there-of in most open source software. Just because something is open source doesn't mean it's free of annoying stuff like this, but it's what most Linux users are used to. Going to a browser that asks me each time to agree to some BS when I run it? Hell, I'd install a version that didn't force me to do that if it was up to me, so I think it's very lame on Mozilla's part to try to force this on users. Once at install time I could live with though but EULAs are just lame, period. Put the legal crap tucked away someplace so I can read it if I choose to do so, but don't pretend that you're forcing me to read it when you know I won't.
Promote true freedom - support standards and interoperability.
http://stemp.wordpress.com/2008/09/14/intrepid-firefox-et-son-cluf/#comments If it's correct, that behavior is fine with me, nothing to accept = no need to call in the lawyers when using linux on enterprise.
They waited until an inconvenient time to improve the chances that Ubuntu would agree to their demands rather than changing the browser.
There are several Brainstorm ideas that propose a way of dealing with the EULA for the upcoming Intrepid Ibex release:
So far, the Iceweasel option seems to be the most popular by a large margin.
OS Reviews: Free and Open Source Software
EULAs, along with the "normal" licenses, should not be forced in the user's face, especially each time they want to load a program, with an annoying pop-up. Basically no one reads them or cares, and if they do they should be allowed to read them in the Help menu or whatnot, but don't pretend that you're making the user read them by shoving them into their faces when you know they'll just click OK, it's immature and anal. I'll crack the program or install something else to avoid being plagued by pop-ups, so this is really a shitty move on Mozilla's behalf. If I can't circumvent something like that I'll use the re-branded version.
Promote true freedom - support standards and interoperability.
Trademarks may lapse if they aren't legally defended. This is to prevent IE8 being renamed 'Microsoft Firefox'.
There is no need to fork Firefox (is shit) as Iceweasel is already the standard solution. If they don't drop Firefox for iceweasel then it's time to fork Ubuntu to keep Ubuntu what it started out to be. Simple as that.
IT Admins Group: Where you decide the content
Firefox's is as free as any other open-source project
False. The artwork distributed with Firefox is non-free. The source code from which Firefox is distributed is free, but that's not the same as Firefox being free.
Look out!
But you know as well as I that gratis offerings try to put legal limits on what we can use the software for, no reverse engineering etc. Whereas software under a "FSF-libre" (in lack of a better word) license grants you the right to modify it for your own use, and redistribute it under certain conditions. You must agree that it's closer to "true libre" than proprietary offerings.
A lot of people on this site prefers "FSF-libre" to proprietary software because they are freer to use it for what they want/need.
There is no concensus in the loosly kniw OSS community on what is the best balance between making sure that the software stays as libre as possible, and granting as many rights to the users as possible. The GPL is one attempt to do that.The Zlib is another. And if you think that Zlib license software is not free enough...
see comment #12 at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=439604. ;)
that's an attitude of "we're king of the hill, we want to do it this way, so FY everybody". i think this attitude is the worst part. oh, and you might consider voting on the bug
Rich
Linux is also trademarked. Does that mean we should add a EULA that you have to agree to everytime you boot a new kernel?
actually, opera pops up eula upon firstrun. i don't know how many of their users read it, maybe 0.01 % or so. granted, opera is non-free (oss) software, so it's a bit different situation there.
Rich
This is funny. Ubuntu is starting to get all high and mighty about the idealism behind free software. I thought that was one of the main reasons for (initially) splitting out from Debian.
If you want free software use Debian, if you want to be p0wned use Ubuntu. Sorry, but I think Ubuntu did Debian a disservice by spitting out rather than combining efforts to make Debian more of whatever it is people like about Ubuntu (other than non-free).
IceWeasel works fine, a one time EULA works fine too. I think if Ubuntu is going to be a pop distro, meaning they have a high level of brand recognition, then they had better stick with what brands people know, Firefox, and not try to get purist. It will only hurt the benefits they have realized via name recognition.
... and then it's called Iceweasel.
The code for Firefox ist free, but not the artwork and name.
Sorry, I don't really subscribe to the Debian definition of free. Firefox is FOSS, you can sub the images out if you like. Red Hat is the same way and RHEL is still FOSS, people don't piss and moan about it.
Reasonable point and one I didn't consider when replying. There are some other posts that point out that it does have usage clauses, but is intended to be a distribution control.
Screw it, I say. If make 'em click okay or do "Ctrl + Alt + F2". If you like we can put "[Whatever]" buttons on those places where agreement is not required since that is what most people say when they see them anyway.
B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
'No. You're glossing over the part where copyright engages. You write a poem. It is entirely yours to control. By default, there are no natural or moral restrictions on what you can do with the material, having created it yourself.'
Copyright is not a natural or moral thing. It exists only because of law. You do not naturally or morally own an idea. While I can do anything I like with the material I do not have the right to prevent anyone from doing what they like with it.
'"Because you can't physically stop me" is never a justification for an act in a society.'
Because you can't stop me is natural law. In a society we make laws that run contrary to natural law, such as copyright. Copyright works naturally copy to every person who hears or sees them.
'This applies to the author, in whose body is vested a full set of rights.'
False, and you can't quote rights granted by copyright to demonstrate what rights exist without that grant.
'This is correct, if the author chooses not to impose additional or different license terms. But in the case of most software, the authorization comes in the form of a conditional grant, without which, you have no rights to the work whatsoever.'
Yes, just not in the case of the GPL software we are all discussing. The GPL is not an agreement for end-users. It is an agreement for those who wish to distribute the work. The terms are for those who wish to distribute the work. It isn't a matter of end users merely not having to agree to the GPL, they aren't supposed to agree to the GPL. The GPL is something the person who distributed your copy had to agree to so that you would have a legal copy and all the natural rights that come with that copy.
"you will no longer receive proprietary and unreadable file formats from Windows users" .Net.
Yes you will or you will from commercial prodcuts that run under Linux and or the Mac. As long as Office is around you will. Not to mention all the docs that are already in Office format.
" you can design websites far more easily with greater features and usability, thanks to standards"
But unless IE drops to less than what %5 of the market odds are that you will have to still support it. I see no end to testing under Firefox, IE, and Safari any time soon.
Hopefully Chrome is close enough to Safari that you testing and fixing for one will cover both. And yes I know that Firefox and Safari tend to work closer to the standards than IE. But you still should at least test in each.
"hardware manufacturers will be forced to please the Linux crowd by throwing resources into the development and improvement of the Linux kernel"
Maybe but then again AMD, Intel, IBM, and now Via are already doing that. Oh and not to mention all the embedded companies. This one is already happened.
"current Windows developers will turn to developing Linux applications instead of Windows ones (even just small internal company software counts here)"
Maybe but without Visual Basic they are doomed. Frankly there is still a huge number that are already left out in the cold by Visual Basic
Maybe Mono will be their best hope.
"developers will need to cater for more idiots, which will most likely cause developers a lot of problems making a balance between power users and idiots with UI design - a better result should be obtained in the long run"
Only if they make money at it. This is the key issue here. Programmers want stuff just like everyone else. That takes a paycheck. Right now Red Hat, Suse, IBM, Cantonical, and a large number of others are all paying for this.
And please don't use the term idiots. People forget that most people use devices for work and they have NO clue how to maintain them. Most people that drive cars can not fix them, most pilots that fly planes are not A&Ps, and most people that use a stove can not fix those if they break. Making things easy to use is a good thing. A program that is powerful but hard to use isn't as good as a program that is powerful but easy to use.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Then I apologize. I saw your comment about EULAs and SLAs as being analagous to copyright as well. Since the discussion here is whether or not Mozilla should display a EULA, I thought you were tying back to that.
If you only meant to compare EULAs and SLAs then you are right and I agree.
I was trying to get some bits of the Gnome community to make 'constrain y' configurable at one point. You know, the annoying as all get out 'fetaure' that keeps you from alt-left-clicking the window and putting the title bar off screen. I could see the hypothetical argument that a novice could accidentally alt-left-click and drag, not understanding what they are doing. So I patched it with a gconf setting that would only be available by editing the raw setting. Their response was that if a Window could be resized, there never would be a reason to drag it off screen, and rejected the patch. It presented the same stupid default behavior, and hid the 'power-user' feature away 'safely' from the novice user's view.
Other platforms have gone down this path, and if pursued to the ultimate conclusion, Linux will be no better than the others. A large part of the value proposition is the power to do more things. All this focus on the lowest common denominator works to dilute it. Yes, I know I can switch desktop environments for ones that more closely align with my sensibilities, but a lot of good/useful features are implemented by developers with a focus on a 'complete' Gnome environment. Trying to get the best of all worlds leads to quite the unfortunate user experience.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
If the requirements of some of the commercial applications mandate that the user experience be no more flexible than Windows, what exactly was gained?
I've seen *nix applications at large go away from the administrator friendly simple ways (simple pipe interactions, rc files), to... something else... gconf imitates the Windows registry (a tad more sanely, given, but still...), applications are starting to require more API-like ways of extending/interacting with them that aren't as script friendly. In the course of 'progress', I see the platform erode some of its value, in increasingly hard to ignore places....
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Is there a way I can sue Ubuntu for money on this? They state on their main page that one of their promises is to "encourage you to use free and open source software, improve it and pass it on.". If they violate this social contract, then I have put my free time into this community under false pretense. Is there a lawyer out there that can tell me if I can I get money for the amount of programming time I put into Ubuntu already?
If this discussion is turning into some kind of "vote" by participation I just wanted to voice my opinion to state that I'd rather use a unbranded Iceweasel than a EULA'd Firefox.
The Manager, Lawyer and PRolete type that has taken over the Mozilla Foundation can shove their EULA where the sun don't shine, for all I care.
Just click no, it should install anyway. Otherwise the installer is broken and you should file a bug.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
But if Firefox becomes generic, then no-one else can trademark it either.
They have mixed up the EULA with the distribution licence, sicne only the distribution licence needs to have the terms relating to US export laws, not using the Firefox trademarks in derivative works. thus Sections 1, 2, 7, and 8 belong in the EULA file, 4 and 5 in WARRANTY, and 3 and 6 in the distribution licence. If these were linked to clearly in the initial page (which overrides the homepage the first time Firefox runs after an install or point upgrade), then that might be enough to count as a proper agreement (in the same way website Terms of Use are), but would not annoy users as much as a pop-up box does.
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."- Winston Churchill
1) What is it in the Coca Cola analogy that you didn't get? Coca Cola = Trademarked and they don't ask you to agree to an EULA.
2) If you have someone installing Ubuntu on a mission critical PC in a nuclear power plant you have some bigger problem than suing the people who made the browser.
3) Would you please stop insulting me?
I understand Mozilla's position here, but why make it an agreement? There are a number of Open Source licenses that allow (or require) the software to make certain notices to the end user. There is nothing in Firefox's license "agreement" that really requires the user to agree to. It's kind of like some of the windows OSS projects that put the GPL text into the "EULA" box, even though it doesn't require any actual agreement (from an end user at least). If the Ubuntu installer just put an "OK" button on the license notice rather than making it an "agreement" and requiring the user to accept it before they can install (or use?) the software, there probably wouldn't be any controversy, and the Mozilla folks could still protect their trademark, notify people about the lack of warranty, and handle any other information that they felt the need to convey.
If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
Fedora has the "agree not to develop WMD's" clause in the license agreement.
At least there is some sort of relevance, as I might want to use a Fedora-based system to control my nuclear missiles (I'm an evil overlord, I have to do something stupid). What really upsets me, though, is that I'm not allowed to use iTunes to control my nuclear bombs.
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."- Winston Churchill
http://www.rinkworks.com/said/warnings.shtml
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
This crap coming from Mozilla sounds a lot like the crap coming out of the XFree86 people not too long ago. That, combined with the horrible bloat of Firefox makes me wonder how long it will be until a new FOSS browser becomes the de-facto standard.
http://outcampaign.org/
End User LICKING Agreement?
You are all a bunch of idots.
Copyright is not a natural or moral thing. It exists only because of law. You do not naturally or morally own an idea.
Copyright doesn't cover ideas. The rest of the analysis cannot stand when you commit so grave an error at the outset.
Because you can't stop me is natural law.
No, it's not. Natural law is a premise flowing from the essence of an act. You have a natural right to life. Because you can't physically stop someone from taking your life does not mean killing is a natural right.
"Because you can't physically stop me" is by definition the absence of law.
Maybe they should use an approach similar to Open SUSE, during the installation, there is an option to Accept all of the EULAs for the non free software that was chosen for the installation. In corporate use, it is not up to our end users to accept or reject an EULA, it is up to us as the admin team to choose what software to deploy, license and accept for use.
A lot of people on this site prefers "FSF-libre" to proprietary software because they are freer to use it for what they want/need.
And it's a great tool for that. What it is not, however, is anything appreciably like "free" in the literal sense.
The holy wars are absurd. A software license is a tool. You use the one that does what you want. "Freer for your purposes" doesn't mean "free". It is a political and polemical distinction that is disingenuous at best.
You must agree that it's closer to "true libre" than proprietary offerings.
No, I must not, because it is not. It depends entirely on who you are and what you want it to do. It releases some restrictions while imposing others. A certain community may view it as more consistent with their desires--but another may view it as less consistent with theirs.
The only licenses that are appreciably close to the "libre" definition of 'free' are the BSD-style licenses. Freedom of options means freedom for everyone.
Proprietary licenses favor creators and upstream developers, GPL licenses favor users and downstream developers. They're just different tools. There are so many licenses out there, both proprietary and open source, that anyone can maximize "freedom" for whatever they want--or create a new license to do so. To talk about one being more "free" than the other is something GPL zealots do, and wrongly. You rarely see other open source proponents with the fire and brimstone shtick. It's obnoxious, it's factually wrong, and it's counterproductive.
'Copyright doesn't cover ideas.'
Incorrect. Copyright ONLY covers ideas. Actual tangible materials are covered by patents. Other forms of IP might protect an idea, trademarks, trade secrets, etc. As far as I know, the only non-idea IP is patents.
'Because you can't physically stop someone from taking your life does not mean killing is a natural right.'
Tell the rabbit and the wolf all about these laws you seem to think exist in nature. I'm sure they will find your arguments fascinating. Fortunately for them, natural law can neither be made nor destroyed by a poor argument.
'"Because you can't physically stop me" is by definition the absence of law.'
Excellent, you have conceded that in the absence of any law to the contrary that is the standard applied to all actions and behaviors. Including the use of the poem you handed me.
However, that is not the only reason copyright is not natural. What you are claiming is akin to attempting to prevent others from walking because you managed to walk fully upright before anyone else you know of. Once others see you walk upright, the expression of your idea, you can't make them forget what they saw. That idea now belongs to them just as much as it belonged to you and they have every right to express it in turn and let others see the expression.
The same is true of the Mona Lisa. I have seen the Mona Lisa only in Photographs, the painting was Leonardo's expression of his idea. The photograph is the photographers expression of the idea passed to him by the photograph. And in my mind is stored yet another copy of the image. There is natural or physical law that would give Leonardo an actual, moral, or ethical right to prevent me from sharing that idea in turn with others. Once it is in my mind it belongs to me.
The only rights you have when you think of an idea, be it a book, software, music, a drawing, or other idea that is or is not currently copyrightable is to not express the idea to others.
After all, ideas you don't express won't be transmitted to others and will be all yours... until someone else has the same idea. And someone else will, because your amazing idea, is actually only a twist on the millions of ideas you absorbed from the expressions of others throughout your life.
Most agree that the right to property is natural law. But your property is not the idea or the control of the expression of that idea. Your property is only the actual expression you created. Weave a rug, the rug is yours but if someone else sees the rug they have every natural right to make a rug with the same pattern.
Incorrect. Copyright ONLY covers ideas.
No.
"In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea..." 17 USC 102(b).
Thanks for playing.
Excellent, you have conceded that in the absence of any law to the contrary that is the standard applied to all actions and behaviors.
No. Absence of law == anarchy.
But it is a moot point because there are five levels of law to the contrary.
Weave a rug, the rug is yours but if someone else sees the rug they have every natural right to make a rug with the same pattern.
This is independent creation and merger. It does not apply to slavish reproduction of a work, ever. Natural ability != natural right.
If you dont like it, dont use it twitter! just use Konqueror
There's endless open browsers (icewesal, ephiphany, etc) out there to take your pick. You dont have to use firefox if you dont want to. You seem to miss one of the beauties of open source... more freedom of choice!
Make SELinux enforcing again!
If you're not going to accept standard definitions, that's your prerogative, but you should point it out before making statements that depend on it. And I still think you have a false premise.
Firstly, and perhaps trivially, people don't complain about RHEL because Red Hat hasn't changed the redistribution terms without warning. Debian had had permission to distribute a DFSG free version of Mozilla Firefox, and then Mozilla unilaterally revoked that permission without warning during the late stages of the release cycle. Ubuntu had had permission to distribute a version of Mozilla Firefox without an EULA, and now Mozilla has unilaterally revoked that permission during the late stages of the release cycle.
More significantly, "Firefox" clearly refers to a piece of software only available in binary form, making it non-free by (standard) definition — and I think any definition that approximates the understanding on this site. The (free) source code that can generate Firefox is evidently not Firefox; this is the core reason Mozilla have caused such difficulties firstly for Debian and now for Ubuntu.
On the other hand, because Red Hat Enterprise Linux is not a piece of software, it's not correct to say it's "free software"; instead, it consists of free software. RHEL includes such matters as support.
Look out!
No, guns can only kill (or not-quite-lethally wound, if you're a *very* skilled and extremely lucky shot). That's why handgun safety rules say you should never point a gun at something you don't want dead.
I don't know where you learned to shoot (Hollywood, maybe?) but it is quite difficult to kill something by shooting a single bullet at it. Even at 10 meters it is difficult to hit in a combat situation. I'm well trained and experienced, and I know that I've got to empty a good portion of my clip to ensure that 'something is dead'. Luckily, in the army in which I serve, we are not supposed to kill the enemy, nor do we want to. They are much more valuable alive.
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
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.
I would prefer a one time EULA upon first boot than a splashscreen each time I start the browser.
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
The point of putting it in the users face is that the user MUST say they saw the EULA AND AGREED to it before they can continue.
If the user did not see it and agree to it, they can not be bound by it.
You are irrelevant. You've already admitted you do not respect the law and have no problem breaking it, likely stealing the software as well, no one cares about you and the EULA you didn't agree to, you have no rights to the software in the first place because you already broke the license that allowed you to use it in the first place.
Do you live on your own? Do you 'crack' the lease on your apartment or the mortgauge paperwork for your home or loan paperwork for your car? What? You didn't? You signed it before you got into your home/car?
You're talking about being 'plagued' by pop-ups? I somehow don't think 'one time the first time the application is ran' falls into the 'plagued' catagory for most people.
I know it may seem to make you feel more manly for cracking it, but you are also likely to be the one to sue them and claim you didn't know what the EULA said ... you would also lose, and thats okay, because you don't deserve to win for being such a self centered ignorant immature person. The good thing is that you would STILL be bound by the EULA even though you circumvented it, since you had to go out of your way to try to 'cheat' the system, you'd lose pretty quickly in a court of law. You ever wonder why there are court cases arguing if a clickwrap license is valid ... but there are no court cases arguing for the person who cracked the software? Lawyers tend to like to win when they go to court, and defending such ignorance would require them to get paid a lot of money up front to deal with a case they know they are going to lose. The people who have the money to pay those lawyers aren't so dumb that they would rather do that than taking the 3 minutes it requires to read the EULA the one time it occurs, or they simply click through it and accept the consequences.
Your idealism is great. Your grasp of reality and the practicality of the world is non-existent.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Dude, you have no idea! It takes one shot from 100 yards to kill anyone, even if the shooter is an unexperienced person who just picks up the gun and fires even though its obviously not at the person they are trying to shoot.
All gunshots kill people in a matter of seconds, just long enough for you to run up to them, cradle them in your arms and listen to them utter some poetic words about how they are sorry and its getting cold.
I've seen enough movies to know how people die from gunshot wounds, how dare you claim that Hollywood dramatizes these things and doesn't give as an accurate picture of the process in the last 3 minutes of our favorite TV shows! Next you're going to tell us that the gunshot would from a 22 in the gut doesn't kill instantly!
*joking*
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Lol, what the crap, no one wants extra licenses and that includes stupid EULAs which place extra restrictions on users and doesn't make it free software, I'll stick with the GPL and other free licenses and you can do whatever you want, k thanx.
Promote true freedom - support standards and interoperability.