Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mozilla Admits Firefox EULA Is Flawed

Posted by kdawson on from the sudden-outbreak dept.

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.'"

21 of 312 comments (clear)

  1. My primary question... by spikenerd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Do I have to accept it in order to proceed? If I do, it's a EULA no matter what you call it.

    1. Re:My primary question... by digitalunity · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Silly. I think what they are really looking for is called a "Copyright notice". Basically stating the software source code is covered under the GPL and the artwork, name and other aspects are covered under trademark and copyright.

      Hey, that kind of sounds like the About Mozilla Firefox option under help.

      What are we talking about again?

      --
      You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
    2. Re:My primary question... by Garridan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Agreed. What bothers me, is they only seem worried about their trademark -- so why don't they just put the little ^{TM} by the logo? Do you have to sign a license agreement when you buy a can of Coke? What's the difference here? Oh, the software license? That's easy -- just put it in Help/About. No need for a click-through. This is just garbage.

    3. Re:My primary question... by ianare · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There are 3rd party services now included in FF which have additional terms not covered by copyright/trademark law.

  2. End User License Agreement by XaXXon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You're going to have a License Agreement presented to the End User.. Maybe call it LAEU?

    It's walking like a duck and quacking like a duck.

  3. not a EULA eh? by trybywrench · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "So we'll have a license agreement but we won't think of it as a EULA"

    hmm yeah we need some sort of agreement.. an agreement with the user.. that lets them know the terms of our license.. you know for our trademarks and stuff... but not a EULA.

    I wonder if there's an acronym for this user agreement to our license thingy...

    --
    I came to the datacenter drunk with a fake ID, don't you want to be just like me?
    1. Re:not a EULA eh? by arotenbe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The GPL only imposes restrictions on how you can distribute software. Anyone can use it however they want.

      In fact, that's the fundamental argument about why an EULA for GPL'd software is wrong. An EULA really implies an "End User Use License Agreement". But GPL software is sold (or given), not licensed. The GPL is a distribution license, and explicitly places no restrictions on use. So the EULA for Firefox really ought to say, "You can use Firefox for whatever you want, but if you want to distribute it, please comply with the GPL. Oh, and don't use the trademark 'Firefox' for any other browser. Otherwise, have a nice day!"

      --
      Tomato wedge sperm darts that are Republican.
    2. Re:not a EULA eh? by LWATCDR · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well that depends on how one is going to use it. But too not split hairs the GPL requires you to include the GPL with all GPL software. It doesn't say that it can not be displayed for them.
      The fact that so many people are getting so upset over this is just no longer funny. Is this really worth getting all up in arms over?
      Mozilla seems to want to do what is right. And goodness knows they have already done the FOSS community a world of good.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  4. It isn't the specifics... it's the principle. by compumike · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nobody has to agree to the GPL to use a GPL'ed piece of software -- only to gain additional rights like redistribution. All Mozilla really needs to do is to look at the Trolltech / Qt situation, and then look around and see real alternatives to their product (Opera / WebKit / etc), and they'll wake up and smell the coffee. There isn't enough justification for the EULA hassle just to "explain the license", and that will be worked around by developers and distributions.

    Looks like they missed the point.

    --
    Hey code monkey... learn electronics! Powerful microcontroller kits for the digital generation.

    1. Re:It isn't the specifics... it's the principle. by dedazo · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I don't understand what the big deal is here. Mozilla acknowledges that the issue is not the software itself, but their trademarks. So show the trademark notice (not the actual GPL text) during install with a specific message that tells the user they do not have to agree to it unless they're actually thinking of redistributing it. Don't have "Accept" and "Reject" buttons, just an "OK" one. Done, end of story.

      Seriously, this has reached epic levels of lameness, even for the usual petty "not free enough!!1!!" flamewars.

      --
      Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
    2. Re:It isn't the specifics... it's the principle. by TheSunborn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That was nice of him to do, but how and where exactly did he do that?

      Example: Here http://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/emacs/windows/emacs-21.3-bin-i386.tar.gz (Sorry, windows binary, but that was the only binary I could find) is a link to emacs. Where does anyone(Other then the gpl itself) grant me the right to run software?

      If the fact that the file is online online and can be downloaded is enough to grant me access to run it,
      can it not then be argued, that I also have the right to run and use the ati drivers(https://a248.e.akamai.net/f/674/9206/0/www2.ati.com/drivers/firegl/firegl_8_502_xp32_driver_only_065657.exe) without accepting the eula?

      This is 2 different files, and I can't see any difference other then the license. And if I reject the license, I should have the same right to use/not use both files.

  5. 'There is a need for something, something...' by wiredlogic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Must... justify... high priced... lawyers...

    --
    I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    1. Re:'There is a need for something, something...' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In corporate America, high-priced lawyers justify themselves!

  6. A rose by any other name... by penix1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "So we'll have a license agreement but we won't think of it as a EULA.'"

    They still don't get it. Anything you have to agree to with an "I agree" button, no matter what they call it, is a EULA.

    --
    This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
    1. Re:A rose by any other name... by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've filed a couple of bug reports against GPL'ed software on this, because GPL specifically says you don't need to agree to it to use the software.

      --
      Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
  7. Not only by Enderandrew · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not only do the GPL bits not belong in the EULA, but the trademark bits don't belong in the EULA either. We're not talking about what end users do, because Mozilla has never stopped end users from doing whatever they want. Mozilla is concerned with distributors repacking Mozilla products with changes they don't like, and misrepresenting their trademark.

    They have their license information online. They make it clear to developers how the project can and can not be repackaged while maintaining official branding.

    How does any of that relate to the end user?

    The answer is to completely remove the nag screen from the end user.

    --
    http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
  8. They want a Splash Screen... by Bazman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Lots of software has splash screens, and most people don't have an aneurysm over them. You pop up the brand, mention the trademarks, and in the meantime the software is doing it's thing.

    Nice software has an option to turn off the splash screen. But you will probably see it the first time.

    Clicking through an "agreement" to not violate their trademark/copyright is dumb. I mean, I've never agreed not to murder anyone...

  9. Re:In order to read this message by Dekker3D · · Score: 2, Insightful

    hmm, mod this redundant or informative as you will, but i feel like it should be pointed out:

    EULA: End User License Agreement.

    firefox will be replacing this with a license agreement. for whom? the end-user ;)

    but i'll forgive them, they're cute. all innocuous and stuff :)

  10. Whatever happened to... by Megatog615 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Help -> About?

  11. serious attack of deja moo by advocate_one · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm sure we had the exact same discussion when they tried to get Debian to include a clickthrough licence for Firefox...

    --
    Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
  12. Re:In order to read this message by DarthJohn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That's not the point. They want to protect their trade marks.

    They have no problem with the code being distributed within the terms of GPL.

    The problem[1] is with using the logos and naming outside of their License Agreement.

    I'm not clear on the details[2] other than the distinction between the code and the trade marks. Iceweasel is OK, for example, because it follows GPL and doesn't even bother with the trade marked material.

    [1] According to Mozilla
    [2] I suppose I could RTFA