Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla Admits Firefox EULA Is Flawed
darthcamaro writes "Mozilla has now come around and is taking seriously the concerns of Ubuntu and others about the Firefox EULA, which we discussed vigorously the other day. In fact Mozilla told InternetNews.com that the EULA itself is flawed and will be replaced with something else. Quoting Mozilla Chairperson Mitchell Baker from the article: 'There is a need for something, something to explain the license[.] I'm not sure I would call it a EULA because that has a meaning to many people of adding restrictions to software and we won't be doing that. We'll be having a license agreement much as Red Hat has a license agreement that says the software is available under the GPL and don't use our trademarks et cetera. So we'll have a license agreement but we won't think of it as a EULA.'"
Read Mitchell's own words.
I really don't understand why people keep linking to silly "news" sites when there's pretty much always far more comprehensive and accurate information available directly at the source.
If you remove the "use" from the second line of your post it becomes much more accurate. The GPL only imposes restrictions on how you can distribute software. Anyone can use it however they want.
Assuming that you have obtained the software legally (for example, from somehow who is distributing it under the GPL), you need no further rights granted to run it. The GPL gives you the additional right to distribute the software (under the given conditions). However, the GPL also contains some things (like a disclaimer of warranty), which do apply to all end users.
They still don't get it. Anything you have to agree to with an "I agree" button, no matter what they call it, is a EULA.
According to this you will not have to. Summary points:
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Actually, you're wrong on both.
1. Mozilla doesn't need a license notification for the GPL because A) Firefox is not licensed under the GPL, and B) Even if it were licensed under the GPL, that license applies to distribution, not use. I'm sure you've probably used GPL software before without having to agree to anything beforehand...
2. Mozilla should not use the trademark (TM) symbol as a means to protect their Firefox brand because "Firefox" is actually a registered trademark. They should (and do) use the registered trademark symbol (R).
This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
See Section 9 of the GPL v3:
how to invest, a novice's guide
The FSF's idea of free software has 2 "levels" of freedoms.
Basically, when the programmer releases their software under the GPL, they are granting everyone freedoms 0 and 1 (to use it for any purpose and to modify the program) by the terms of the GPL. You or anyone else do not have to agree to anything to get those freedoms, not the GPL, not anything. You are given them without conditions by the programmer.
Now, the GPL comes in. If you choose to agree to the terms it offers, you get 2 additional freedoms (to redistribute and to share your modifications with everyone), rights that you otherwise don't have, and also accept a few requirements, such as making the source available. If you don't agree to it, you still have those 2 previous freedoms (0 and 1), but not these other 2 (2 and 3), and do not have their requirements either.
Freedoms 0 and 1 are granted just as you say "just does not make any sense". I'm not sure why you feel it doesn't make sense. Are you suspicious of the concept of getting "something for nothing"?
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Is there a legitimate need for a EULA?
Is there a legitimate need for license text? Yes. I won't get into the idiotic "EULA dance" Slashdot armchair lawyers engage in. 'EULA' is not a term of art. A document calling itself a EULA means whatever it says it means. It could also call itself a Pony License if the licensor wanted.
An SLA, regardless of what it is: proprietary, BSD, GPL, contains a great deal more than simply a license grant. It is an agreement that imposes specific terms and restrictions on all users of software. It contains a number of important notifications by convention (because inclusion in the license is the easiest way to give valid legal notice and prove knowledge in litigation), from warranty disclaimers, limitations of liability, choice of law, trademark/patent notices, and other relevant concerns. In any given SLA, the license portion is dwarfed by the other portions.
In any software exclusively distributed under an SLA, it is the only way you obtain a valid license under copyright and the only way you come into legal possession of a copy. Therefore, the idea that an SLA "takes away" rights is legally, technically, mechanically, and semantically incorrect. The copyright holder has the sole, exclusive right to authorize who may acquire a copy, how they may do so, and what rights are vested in that copy. Without legal possession, you have zero rights to the work.
Some SLAs give you more than others. That's a fact. But it's entirely up to the copyright holder, while the copyright is in effect, to determine who gets a copy and/or shares in exclusive rights.
There's no need to agree to the copyright restrictions, because by default you have no right to redistribution unless it's explicitly granted.
By default you have no right to anything unless it's granted. If the copyright restrictions are a condition of lawful license, then you must agree to them to use the software.
The GPL exists in this way because the notice portions of the license (the bulk of the text) apply to everyone. The license portion tells you that no restrictions apply to your personal use of the software, but that certain portions of the granted rights (namely distribution) are subject to restrictions. Contrary to the text, you must accept that the license contains those restrictions and notices in order to use the software. The way that licensing law works, you cannot ignore the terms ever. You cannot say that the license only comes into effect when someone wishes to distribute, because the grant of rights occurs at the time of acquisition. The limitations must apply at the same time, or they are not valid.
Everyone must accept the GPL, because the specified method of acceptance is performance (i.e., exercising your legal rights)--there is no way to use the software without accepting, regardless of the license text's badly worded "you do not need to accept to use" which really is not a license term under contract law, but a notice that end users are not subject to the restrictions.
If you did not accept the terms of the license or the various notices contained therein, you would have to not use the software at all. Any use constitutes acceptance of the terms and restrictions and acknowledgment of the notices and disclaimers.
It's not rocket science. If a license agreement says that you agree by performance, and you perform, you've agreed. If the GPL wanted to make an exception (which it doesn't, because the owner wants all non-license portions to apply), it would have to add, "Use of this software by end users does not constitute acceptance" to its assent provision.