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.'"

Comments

Mitchell's own words

[savala]

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.

Re:not a EULA eh?

[Drooling Iguana]

If you remove the "use" from the second line of your post it becomes much more accurate. The GPL only imposes restrictions on how you can distribute software. Anyone can use it however they want.

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

[Nathanbp]

Assuming that you have obtained the software legally (for example, from somehow who is distributing it under the GPL), you need no further rights granted to run it. The GPL gives you the additional right to distribute the software (under the given conditions). However, the GPL also contains some things (like a disclaimer of warranty), which do apply to all end users.

Re:A rose by any other name...

[Kjella]

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:

• Makes the license grant parallel to the MPL;
• It has optional terms that govern services provided by Mozilla through the browser (e.g. anti-malware and anti-phishing services). A user may opt of the services and continue using the browser;
• The license grant excludes trademark rights; and
• The license doesnt require explicit click through.

Re:License Notification, Warranty Agreement.

[onefriedrice]

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).

Re:The GPL must be complied with, period.

[chromatic]

If you do not agree to the GPL, you cannot use the software. It is as simple as that.

See Section 9 of the GPL v3:

You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program.