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

In order to read this message

[homesnatch]

You must comply with this EULA^H^H^H^HLicense agreement.

What's in a name

[discord5]

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

End User License Agreement... I suggest that we from now on use the term ANUS, which stands for "Agreement Not to Use the software Subversively". I believe it conveys the message pretty well, and will lead to fun sentences at the office like:

• Did you read the ANUS?
• Click OK on the ANUS.
• I checked the ANUS, and if we link to it our product needs to follow its terms
• You've violated the ANUS of that software package.

Exactly why are we throwing a hissy fit over this? Pop up the goddamn EULA, or rebrand it (lol, iceweasel). It's not like the end user cares enough to click Cancel while loudly gasping and saying "Oh noes, I almost agreed to those evil MPL/GPL licenses and voided my computers warranty".

Re:not a EULA eh?

[LWATCDR]

Use is a broad word.
I can not use it by taking it and changing a few little things then selling it.
That is using software as well.
This getting bent of the EULA is such a tempest in a tea pot that it really isn't funny.