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.'"
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.
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...
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
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.
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.
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 :)
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?
No. It'll be a MULA. Middle User License Agreement. An Ubuntu employee will have to drop by your house and click through the agreement...
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
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.
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.
See Section 9 of the GPL v3:
how to invest, a novice's guide
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?
Is there a legitimate need for a EULA?
Is there a legitimate need for license text? Yes. I won't get into the idiotic "EULA dance" Slashdot armchair lawyers engage in. 'EULA' is not a term of art. A document calling itself a EULA means whatever it says it means. It could also call itself a Pony License if the licensor wanted.
An SLA, regardless of what it is: proprietary, BSD, GPL, contains a great deal more than simply a license grant. It is an agreement that imposes specific terms and restrictions on all users of software. It contains a number of important notifications by convention (because inclusion in the license is the easiest way to give valid legal notice and prove knowledge in litigation), from warranty disclaimers, limitations of liability, choice of law, trademark/patent notices, and other relevant concerns. In any given SLA, the license portion is dwarfed by the other portions.
In any software exclusively distributed under an SLA, it is the only way you obtain a valid license under copyright and the only way you come into legal possession of a copy. Therefore, the idea that an SLA "takes away" rights is legally, technically, mechanically, and semantically incorrect. The copyright holder has the sole, exclusive right to authorize who may acquire a copy, how they may do so, and what rights are vested in that copy. Without legal possession, you have zero rights to the work.
Some SLAs give you more than others. That's a fact. But it's entirely up to the copyright holder, while the copyright is in effect, to determine who gets a copy and/or shares in exclusive rights.
There's no need to agree to the copyright restrictions, because by default you have no right to redistribution unless it's explicitly granted.
By default you have no right to anything unless it's granted. If the copyright restrictions are a condition of lawful license, then you must agree to them to use the software.
The GPL exists in this way because the notice portions of the license (the bulk of the text) apply to everyone. The license portion tells you that no restrictions apply to your personal use of the software, but that certain portions of the granted rights (namely distribution) are subject to restrictions. Contrary to the text, you must accept that the license contains those restrictions and notices in order to use the software. The way that licensing law works, you cannot ignore the terms ever. You cannot say that the license only comes into effect when someone wishes to distribute, because the grant of rights occurs at the time of acquisition. The limitations must apply at the same time, or they are not valid.
Everyone must accept the GPL, because the specified method of acceptance is performance (i.e., exercising your legal rights)--there is no way to use the software without accepting, regardless of the license text's badly worded "you do not need to accept to use" which really is not a license term under contract law, but a notice that end users are not subject to the restrictions.
If you did not accept the terms of the license or the various notices contained therein, you would have to not use the software at all. Any use constitutes acceptance of the terms and restrictions and acknowledgment of the notices and disclaimers.
It's not rocket science. If a license agreement says that you agree by performance, and you perform, you've agreed. 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.
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
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?