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

My primary question...

[spikenerd]

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

Re:My primary question...

[Rayeth]

Yes but this way they can give it a fun sounding name with a happy acronym like FUNS (Free Unlicenced Not-free Software) or FAIRN (Free Although Its Really Not).

Or even better: FAIBNFAIL (Free As In Beer, Not Free As In Libre).

Ignore that it doesn't quite conform to any of those.

Re:My primary question...

[CaptainPatent]

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

Did you even read the article?!? It's not an End User License Agreement, it's just a License Agreement for the End User so it's not a EULA...
it's a LAEU...

Obviously way different.

Re:My primary question...

[digitalunity]

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?

Re:My primary question...

[bliip]

Don't listen to CaptainPatient, I have it on good authority that he's a plant from the People's Front of Judea.

End User License Agreement

[XaXXon]

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.

Re:End User License Agreement

[PawNtheSandman]

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

One is a mallard with a cold. The other.....

I forget the rest but your mother is a whore.

Re:End User License Agreement

[ArsonSmith]

...ducks...

not a EULA eh?

[trybywrench]

"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...

Re:not a EULA eh?

[Drooling Iguana]

If you remove the "use" from the second line of your post it becomes much more accurate. The GPL only imposes restrictions on how you can distribute software. Anyone can use it however they want.

Re:not a EULA eh?

[ArsonSmith]

That's not 'use' as defined in this context. That's called distribution. Sniffing the coke is use, selling it is distribution. Cutting it and selling it is not use. It is still distribution.

It isn't the specifics... it's the principle.

[compumike]

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.

Re:It isn't the specifics... it's the principle.

[Nathanbp]

Assuming that you have obtained the software legally (for example, from somehow who is distributing it under the GPL), you need no further rights granted to run it. The GPL gives you the additional right to distribute the software (under the given conditions). However, the GPL also contains some things (like a disclaimer of warranty), which do apply to all end users.

Re:It isn't the specifics... it's the principle.

[TheSunborn]

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.

'There is a need for something, something...'

[wiredlogic]

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

Not only

[Enderandrew]

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.

They want a Splash Screen...

[Bazman]

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...

Informational dialog

[Rinisari]

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.

Mitchell's own words

[savala]

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.

Re:A rose by any other name...

[Kjella]

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.

According to this you will not have to. Summary points:

• Makes the license grant parallel to the MPL;
• It has optional terms that govern services provided by Mozilla through the browser (e.g. anti-malware and anti-phishing services). A user may opt of the services and continue using the browser;
• The license grant excludes trademark rights; and
• The license doesnt require explicit click through.

I got it

[Yvan256]

License Agreement for Mozilla End-users.

What, no good?

Re:In order to read this message

[davester666]

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...

Re:License Notification, Warranty Agreement.

[onefriedrice]

Actually, you're wrong on both.

1. Mozilla doesn't need a license notification for the GPL because A) Firefox is not licensed under the GPL, and B) Even if it were licensed under the GPL, that license applies to distribution, not use. I'm sure you've probably used GPL software before without having to agree to anything beforehand...

2. Mozilla should not use the trademark (TM) symbol as a means to protect their Firefox brand because "Firefox" is actually a registered trademark. They should (and do) use the registered trademark symbol (R).

Why why why?!

[Anita Coney]

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.

Re:The GPL must be complied with, period.

[chromatic]

If you do not agree to the GPL, you cannot use the software. It is as simple as that.

See Section 9 of the GPL v3:

You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program.