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.'"
You must comply with this EULA^H^H^H^HLicense agreement.
Do I have to accept it in order to proceed? If I do, it's a EULA no matter what you call it.
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.
"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?
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.
This isn't an End User License Agreement, it's a license agreement. For, ummmm, the end users.
Slightly disreputable, albeit gregarious
Must... justify... high priced... lawyers...
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
"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.
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.
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...
So, any bets on how long it is going to be before all the people from the last Mozilla EULA thread who were pushing the "C'mon, suck it up, it isn't a big deal, nothing to be done anyway, the average user doesn't care, don't be a freetard" line show up to admit that whining was a useful measure?
I'm guessing it'll be a while.
well we found that we like license agreements, but no one else does, so we thought that we'd rename they 'Beer', because people like 'Beer'. so three cheers for 'Beer'! oh! it's time to take our soma....
If it's simply for the user's information, why not make it open in a tab when the browser is opened for the first time, not an obtrusive dialog box like it is now? It would be like the tab which spawns where there's an automatic update.
This way, Mozilla can have its "EULA sans mandatory agreement" and the users can simply close the tab if they're not interested in reading the lengthy open source licenses or a summary thereof.
Colin Dean Go a year without DRM
What is happening? Why this brain-dead action? Why piss off people like this? The Mozilla crowd is being hit hard by WebKit, and this is their answer?
As usual, when politics get involved, everything goes down the drain.
This sig does not contain any SCO code.
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.
I'm pretty sure firefox is licensed under GPLv2. Luckily... v2 has similar language. To quote... "5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it."
google.slashdot
"We'll be having a license agreement" which I assume I need to agree to in order to use the software, which sounds a lot like a EULA. Unless there is a clause like "if you don't like this agreement you can just ignore it" which I somehow doubt. Personally this annoys the heck out of me because 99% of my software doesn't force me to read the EULA/License/etc, imagine if every time you ran a UNIX utility you had to view/agree to a license. If grep and Galeon don't do it, why does Firefox have to?
I think it might be this: they have no problem with you using and modifying their software. They just don't want you to use the Mozilla or Firefox trademark after you do so. Once you have modified it, it isn't the same product, and they don't want their name associated with it.
I think it's just DRM as far as the trademark is concerned, which they have every right to do. So all the over-reactions need to chill a bit. As long as they keep the software free to use and modify, there isn't an issue.
Mozilla needs to have 2 things. A license notification - this software is free to use and available for redistribution under the GPL - and a warranty agreement - by using this software, you agree it is not covered by any warranty or guarantee, period. Trademark issues in the agreement are useless. Their trademark is already covered by trademark law, and only needs the "TM" symbol next to it for protection. I can't copy someone else's novel or software simply because I didn't "agree" to their copyright. It exists whether I agree to it or not. The only thing Mozilla needs protection from is guarantees of use and warranty.
Three rights make a left. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly.
http://lockshot.wordpress.com/2008/09/15/firefox-eula-in-linux-distributions/
The post itself has the current draft.
http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2008/09/15/ubuntu-firefox-and-license-issues/
> 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.
Quit implying that users are entering into a contract with you. Call it a "NOTICE". Leave off the "Agree" (or whatever) clicky. If you think you have to have a clicky (you don't) label it "Acknowledge".
The fact is, though, that you don't even need a notice.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
So this means people do need to accept the license if they wish to install plugins or extensions, yes?
---- Liquid was a patriot ----
After reading (several independent summaries of) the firefox EULA...
I don't see why they couldn't just clean out the things that don't apply to the end-user (mostly their trademark on redistribution), replace "I agree" with "continue" and remove "I disagree". That way they can have informed the user of where to get the source code, that mozilla can't be held liable for anything firefox does (if they must - you can't sign away your rights to sue them anyway and this applies to everything in Ubuntu so that's kinda redundant), about the anti-phishing stuff and its implications, and refer you to an actual license if you want to redistribute. That should cover their asses legally speaking without requiring the user to agree to anything.
Does a line appended to your comment give your post meaning in and of itself, or only in relation to those without?
Help -> About?
At starbuck's this morning all the bluehaired ladies were sitting around laughing at the fox while they surfed the web using assorted beta software packages.
I think one of 'em had Dillo v0.9 from an svn repository.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
License Agreement for Mozilla End-users.
What, no good?
How hard is it to make this license show up on the initial tab you see. Every time I upgrade to a new Firefox there's a extra tab popping up to tell me just how cool I am for upgrading to the latest version and why I should be such a happier person for it. Just do that with the license and be done with it. Is there really that big a need for some "accept" button on this thing?
The other flaw is that the license was giving Google rights to all your work.
If you do not agree to the GPL, you cannot use the software. It is as simple as that. The copyright holder allows the user to use the copyrighted material in exchange for the user's promise to abide with the terms of the license (i.e., the GPL).
This is not mere semantics (well, it is, but it's legally important semantics). This word-mechanism allows the licensor-developer-GPL guy to retain his or her copyright. That copyright is the muscle that empowers the GPL.
If you don't agree to the GPL, then you have NOT made a bargain with the licensor. If you have not made a bargain with the licensor, then the licensor has NOT conveyed some of his copyright to you. Without that conveyance of copyright, you can't copy and use the program!
In the rather strange situation that you install an extension which modifies firefox's code, and if then you proceed to distribute the resulting code, yes.
Because kdawson is still an editor here, so you've got a better chance of getting your post of an inflammatory interpretation by a talking head on the front page than the actual original material...
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
Why does Red Hat, Mozilla, or any other company, need a license telling people not to use their trademarks?! Isn't that what fricken trademark law is all about?! Do they honestly believe I can use Coke's trademark anyway I want merely because Coke doesn't come with a EULA?!
Having too many lawyers never solved any problem, but they've created more than a few. This is one of those instances.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Maybe so they can not violate it and say they didn't know?
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Just call it a Notifications of Tradmarks and have it spell out what it is all about in plain English.
"You cannot use our trademark on anything but this software with out our permission".
(Continue)
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
They can replace it with whatever copyright notice they want. I think the issue is "accept" and "deny" buttons which don't mean anything. Nobody has to accept a copyright.
The parent stated this license excerpt: "nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program" Extensions are not merely data, they are enhancements to the browser that sure seem to modify the program. See Adblock, Noscript, or FireFTP for and advanced example.
---- Liquid was a patriot ----
Firefox purports to be open-source, but as far as I can see, this entire "trademark" is just a backdoor way to exert traditional copyright controls. The Mozilla Foundation (or whatever they're calling it these days) should not be wasting time trying to restrict users' use of the software, except insofar as that user's actions deny to others the freedoms that they received. That's the point of open-source.
All of this fussing over trademarks is just pointless infighting. Mozilla does not enjoy a captive audience like Microsoft. If they make a good product, people will use it; if not, their users are more than capable of switching to Chrome in large numbers, very quickly.
Any gap in performance versus immediate competitors will do far more damage to Mozilla's "brand name" than a few non-blessed builds floating around out there with the Firefox name.
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.
Yes, if EULA = evil then LAfEU = ilfev.
And ilfev isn't a real word so how could that be evil?
LAfEU (pronounced life) - License Agreement for End User
Absolutely, see the problems was that the lawyers did not work hard or long enough on the "EULA". The result was that much of the common folk could understand it. With sufficient time and effort, they will make it so that nobody will understand it (not even themselves). It's called obfuscation.
Is there a legitimate need for a EULA? I basically always thought EULAs were about taking away your rights, including restrictions on resale, benchmarking, modification, examination, etc. There's no need to agree to the copyright restrictions, because by default you have no right to redistribution unless it's explicitly granted. I would have thought that there's no need to have anything about trademarks in there, because again I thought you'd have to have explicit permission to use the mark. Even for disclaimer of warranty I would think it would only be required to be displayed, but no agreement from the user would be needed.
Of course, like most people on /. IANAL, so are there some legitimate, non-evil (i.e. not depriving you of rights you'd have with any other product you buy) uses for the EULA? And will a EULA for firefox provide any significant additional protection for their trademarks?
One of the real pleasures of switching to Linux from Windows was no longer being confronted with EULAs for every damned thing, so I'd really hate to see them come into vogue here too. I also really just like the idea that FOSS software is mine (like any other product) to do with what I please, within the bounds of the law (e.g., copyright law). With EULAs it always feels like corporate lawyers are gradually chipping away at all the freedoms I used to enjoy.
"You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
You might need a licence to install on more than one computer per CD, but they don't need a popup dialog to give you a licence - they can just write an open letter and send it to a major media outlet to say that they give permission to all and sundry to install it and use it as much as they like. Now everybody on earth has a licence for that right of the copyright owner.
In fact they've just publically given that permission in this news article, so that bit is already sorted.
You can download the source code for a GPLed application and do whatever you want with it without agreeing with the license. However, if you want to distribute your version of the code afterwards then you must abide by the GPL.
LAfEU (pronounced life)
So what your saying is it's about time the people obsessing over EULA got a LAfEU.
Meh, Still looks more like laughy you.
What if Tetris was invented by Nazis?
The program is not the technical effect that it has on the world around it but the collection of static files on the disk. Unless those are modified, you have not modified the program - only modified its effects. Like if I put a shaped glass panel in front of a stained glass window. The projected image is modified but the protected art (which I can modify if I want anyway) remains unmodified.
Ok, how about updates?
---- Liquid was a patriot ----
What makes Firefox good is the extensions. I can't stand the thought of going back to the days before Noscript,Adblock Plus,Forecastfox,Cookieculler,and FEBE. And with FEBE I have my complete browser(extensions,bookmarks,preferences,themes,etc) backed to a folder which takes me less than three minutes to use to transfer my browser settings over to my flash stick so I have everything I need on any machine I come across. Very handy to have.
That is one of the great things about all the choices we have in browsers today IMHO. You can have the features that work for you,I can have my extensions,and we can all be happy. Those of us who remember what it was like to have the choice of Netscape 4(eek!) or IE(eew!) know how nice it is to have choice. But I can tell you as a pc repairman in a little shop that frankly the average non-techie doesn't have a clue about things like threading of JavaScript rendering,and I've been seeing more and more of them switching to Firefox so they must be doing something right. Hell,I have noticed a lot of users still don't know their browser is even capable of tabs! But as always this is my 02c based on what I've been seeing here at the shop,YMMV
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Replacing one work of art with another by substituting a part of the art with a replacement designed by the copyright holder or a licenced agent to give the desired effect?
I don't think you need any explicit permission. Especially since the artwork itself is delivered with a functional component that performs this act for you.
Hang on. Why tag this "semantics?" You taggers realize that GPL stands for "General Public License." Right?
All software, except public domain software (AFAIK), is distributed under some sort of license. It isn't a semantic issue at all. People here are holding Mozilla to a "no license" standard that simply doesn't exist.
Is all this flak simply because Mozilla finds the GPL too generic and inadequate to protect their trademark and liability concerns? Then use Iceweasel or the abrowser branding. Problem solved.
This is a truly trivial matter for such an uproar, and if Mozilla is going to build a brand that competes with IE 8, they need to defend and maintain that brand. You can't play by a different set of rules than the rest of the business world and survive. You play by the rules of engagement, and the laws, of the countries your operate in, or you get steamrolled.
This is not "semantics." This is trademark law, and MS lawyers don't take prisoners.
--
Toro
No, the GPL covers distribution only, not use.
Firefox 3.0 has a feature that blocks sites that are on Mozilla's phishing blacklist. They would like users to accept a service agreement before using this feature, and they would like the feature to be on by default, which means having the user accept the agreement the first time the program runs.
I can understand their desire for the service agreement. Trademark and copyright law apply implicitly - other people have no rights to distribute the software or use the trademarks unless granted by a license (or fair-use), so there is no need to ask someone to agree to them. Service agreements are different - they are honest-to-goodness contracts and not licenses of any sort, so it really is best to get an explicit agreement. And the whole "by simply using this service you agree to the terms posted somewhere on our website" is hard to uphold in court if the user doesn't even know he is using the service.
At the minimum they need to have some sort of nag-screen displayed when activating this feature letting people know that it is getting data from an external server, and to deny liability for inaccuracies etc. Preferably (from the point of view of lawyers), this would require a click-through agreeing to the terms. But if they do this at all it should be done in a way that is clear that they are not agreeing to a license to use the software. Something like:
Firefox has a new phishing protection feature to protect you from fraudulent websites designed to obtain your private information (like passwords and credit card numbers) by disguising themselves to look like legitimate websites (like banks or online shops).
This feature relies on an online service provided by Mozilla Corp. By using phishing protection, you are accepting the terms of the Mozilla Website Service Agreement.
[I accept the service agreement - Enable phishing protection]
[Do not enable at this time]
You should be more concerned with EULAs on food. Yes, food.
Sig this!
My suggestion is that the Mozilla Foundation offer a completely unbranded version of their browser software for public distribution, and name the binary 'wb' - for Web-Browser - or somesuch. The software licence could be the GPL and allow distributors who wish to brand both altered and unaltered versions of 'wb' with their own mark to do so. If end users wish to apply the FireFox brand to wb they could do so by downloading a EULA-protected set of branding files _only_ from Mozilla Corp. The installer of the branding files could very easily check that the particular instance of 'wb' was in fact the genuine unadulterated item before applying the patches to brand 'wb' as a genuine instance of 'firefox'.
Mozilla Foundation: You listening? 'cos I'd be happy with that approach.
Problem solved?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck. The ridiculous situation with the Mozilla trademarks has been going on for far too long. Give me Iceweasel any day.
From Mitchell Baker's blog (http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2008/09/16/firefox-without-eulas-update/): "We've come to understand that anything EULA-like is disturbing, even if the content is FLOSS based. So we're eliminating that. We still feel that something about the web services integrated into the browser is needed; these services can be turned off and not interrupt the flow of using the browser. We also want to tell people about the FLOSS license -- as a notice, not as as EULA or use restriction. Again, this wonâ(TM)t block the flow or provide the unwelcoming feeling that one comment to my previous post described so eloquently."
"There is a need for something, something to explain the license..."
Maybe, if you like. But there's no need for the user to be nagged (even once) about it. Other applications don't do it. The user doesn't need to know what the license is. The user's distribution gives them 1000s of applications and you certainly don't want to see a "This is $APP, its license is $LICENSE. Click [OK]" for every one.
There's no need for this. Put licensing/copyright information in Help/About, so that those who care can find it.
"If you think the problem is bad now, just wait until we've solved it." --- Arthur Kasspe
Un-memory?? wtf is that?? Good thing it's protected though....
if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
Where does anyone(Other then the gpl itself) grant me the right to run software?
This is the law in the United States, home of Slashdot, as I understand it: When you download a computer program, and this copy is not legally bound to a service like World of Warcraft, you become the owner of a copy. Copying a program into RAM to execute it, under the authority of the owner of a lawfully made copy, is not an infringement of copyright. 17 USC 117(a)(1).
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.
It already does:
Because EVERYONE have an opinion on this.
What gave you the right to download and read this post I've written here? ...I didn't give you an explicit license to download or read it. So what's to stop me from suing you for copyright infringement (and winning), other than common sense (which, as I'm sure you know, isn't valid in a court of law)?
Out of armchair speculation, I can think of two things that would be raised.
1. The Terms of Service (that link at the bottom of the page). Specifically, under the 6th heading:
With respect to text or data entered into and stored by publicly-accessible site features such as forums, comments...the submitting user grants Sourceforge the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide
Sourceforge is distributing the content. Once the content is in the hands of someone, you can't use copyright to prevent them from reading it. That would require a confidential information suit.
Whether it's binding would be a matter for the lawyers to wrestle over. It's not clearly presented to you when you sign up. But it's there every time you use the site, on every page. So even if you didn't agree to it when you signed up, you may be agreeing to it every time you post.
This argument is applicable to Emacs, since the owners of gnu.org are licensing you to grab Emacs under the GPL. The Windows binary packages come with the GPL anyway (/info/COPYING), albeit not in a prominent place. Not agreeing to it is no excuse, since if you didn't agree to the licence you'd be using the software unlicensed, infringing copyright.
Doesn't apply to the ATI drivers. They don't publish the URL anywhere that's not accompanied by a licence and any URLs that pop up without going through the licence would be accidental. Creeping into your neighbour's house is still trespassing even if she accidentally left her window unlocked.[1] And no, your what you intended to do doesn't matter when it comes to trespassing/infringement.
[1] No, I don't do this. Just thought it'd be an example familiar to /.
2. Implied licence. By posting your comment to a publicly viewable forum, you're impliedly licensing anyone who comes by to, at the very least, do things reasonably necessary in order to view them (download to RAM, reproduce on monitor).
The Emacs example doesn't need to rely on this, since it explicitly comes with the GPL. ATI would argue no implicit licence because not posted in a public place.
In relation to GP;
can it not then be argued, that I also have the right to run and use the ati drivers... without accepting the eula?
Not necessarily. Even if you can make out a right to download the drivers, that doesn't come with a right to run them. If, like the NVIDIA drivers (not an ATI user), they pop up an EULA when you go to install and you click "Yes", it's no excuse that you didn't agree to any licence when you downloaded the drivers. Of course, then the action is in contract, not copyright, and whether they're enforceable in contract is another issue.