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.'"

9 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. 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?
  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 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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...