Slashdot Mirror


Mozilla Nixes Firefox EULA Requirement

Less than a week ago, Mozilla asked (and Canonical relucantly agreed, in development versions of Intrepid Ibex) that users be required on first use to agree to a EULA before using Firefox. This drew lots of criticism, and Mozilla agreed that the requirement was flawed. Now, according to a story at Groklaw, the EULA requirement's been done away with. From the Groklaw article linked: "Bottom line: Now, you can install and use Firefox without having to agree to a EULA. The services have been separated out. If they were opt in instead of opt out, I'd be happier, but this is acceptable to me. There may be further tweaks, I understand, but I think it's time to acknowledge that Mozilla is behaving very well indeed now and demonstrating a desire to get this right."

26 of 154 comments (clear)

  1. People have complained about this since Firefox 1 by Baricom · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The EULA has been present since the first 1.0 release of Firefox, and people complained just as bitterly then. Why is it that it took a major player like Canonical to get Mozilla to finally respond to their community?

  2. Glad things worked out. by nhaines · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While this was certainly an issue to be concerned about, it was disappointing to see the invective and bile poured out by some on the Launchpad bug page.

    I thought the informative first-run tab was a good way to go about things and I'm glad things finally got settled by sitting down and offering feedback. The best thing about the Free Software and Open Source communities is that they're communities. Coming together to work on solutions is what makes us so much stronger than proprietary software whose owners ignore their own users.

  3. Convenience is the key by houstonbofh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When will companies (organizations) realize that convenience, more than any other factor including price, is a primary differentiator? If you make it difficult, people will just move on to the next solution that is easy. This works for EULAs, DRM, product activation, installation, acquiring media, playing music... "Simple" wins every time.

    1. Re:Convenience is the key by BlueParrot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For DRM it is even worse since it will never be simpler than not having DRM in the first place, and it is rediculously easy to just record the analogue signal. Oh, but that reduces quality you say... Well, it is enough for one person to do it well and upload it to the net, and yes people WILL be able to record it well. If bored teenagers can build fusion based neutron sources in their basements, just for the fun of it, they will manage to record a khz frequency electric signal with quality degradation much lower than what the mp3 compression algorithms causes. The systematic errors could be brought down by simply using higher quality components than what most listeners bother with. The statistical errors (from thermal noise etc.. ) could be brought down by simply recording the same song several times and then combining the results.

    2. Re:Convenience is the key by ksd1337 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Cancel or Allow?

    3. Re:Convenience is the key by Ghubi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Convenience is just one factor among many. Convenience does not explain why anyone would switch to Firefox over from Internet Explorer.

    4. Re:Convenience is the key by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ``"Simple" wins every time.''

      Except that it doesn't. Consider the examples you gave: ``EULAs, DRM, product activation, installation, acquiring media'': all these are obstacles to be dealt with before one can simply use the product. Yet products that feature those hurdles are overwhelmingly popular. Microsoft Windows. DVDs. iTunes Music Store. Need I go on?

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
  4. Debian by cmacb · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Does this mean Debian can go back to using Mozilla/Firefox too?

    Or would it still make more sense to implement an easily customized "installer" for Mozilla/Firefox that could be adapted to any distribution and let the distribution install the installer rather than the actual product?

    1. Re:Debian by bluephone · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, Debian IS allowed to make some changes to firefox and still use the TM'ed name and logo. The issue was Debian didn't want to follow Mozilla's updated policy about it, and the PROBLEM came about that it was no longer trivial for Debian to merely change the branding information due to them braking the branding switch which Mozilla engineered specifically to make changing the branding easy. Debian could no longer merely add a compile time switch and change a couple files in a special directory, this caused them a large amount of grief to undo the problem they caused for themselves, and it came late in a dev cycle.

      Mozilla's requirements were that Debian submit their changes in smaller, easier to read patches, rather than the single monolithic patch they submitted. There were also some changes Mozilla wasn't happy about. But the big problem was that it wasn't easy for Debian to change the branding due to them breaking the branding switch. Had that still been working, they'd have just turned it off and dealt with the TM issues later, although they still probably would have created their own brand because they wanted to make more changes than Mozilla would have allowed to still be called Firefox.

      In the end, it was about identity, which Debian is well aware. Debian wants to protect their identity, and so does Mozilla. Mozilla will let you make changes in a distro of Firefox and still use the logos and name, but you have to abide by their rules. If you think about that, it's pretty fair. And if you don't like those rules, you can still take the code and do what you wish with it, but you have to give it your own name. I don't see that as being a bad thing.

      Mozilla is actually quite amenable to use of their trademarks, so calling them "restrictive trademarks" is unfair. They're only restrictive when you run afoul of the guidelines they set out. One could say that the GPL is a "restrictive license" because it won't allow me to make proprietary changes to the code and keep them secret. The truth is that the GPL is quite permissive as long as you follow its rules. Rules are by definition "restrictive". It's unfair to label Mozilla's TM guidelines as restrictive when referring to instances where people are breaking the rules.

      --
      jX [ Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler. - Einstein ]
    2. Re:Debian by bluephone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I notice you left out "And still call it firefox" in all but the first part of your reply. Mozilla can't stop anyone from supporting Firefox 1.5, or even 0.9, or any other version, ever. They can only say "We don't want that called Firefox."

      --
      jX [ Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler. - Einstein ]
    3. Re:Debian by JackieBrown · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The issue was Debian didn't want to follow Mozilla's updated policy about it

      Mozilla's requirements were that Debian submit their changes in smaller, easier to read patches, rather than the single monolithic patch they submitted. There were also some changes Mozilla wasn't happy about.

      The problem was that Mozilla could approve or deny any patch that Debian wanted to include.

      The other problem is that Mozilla did not understand why Debian wanted to backport security patches to old versions. The freeze nature of Debian stable escaped them.

    4. Re:Debian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The trademark policy by Mozilla is restrictive in the sense that you can't take Firefox, make any modification you wish, and still call it "Firefox". This is not necessarily a bad thing, but in the end it was not compatible with the way Debian wished to do things.

      How is this any different to the fact that you can't take Debian either, make your modifications and still call it "Debian"?

  5. Re:Sure, they're good guys by nhaines · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That was actually what made me feel that the EULA requirement might have been disingenuous. I don't have any inside knowledge on the matter, of course--it was a Canonical matter. I am glad that things turned out smoothly though.

  6. Re:Sure, they're good guys by markdavis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    >If they had a desire to get this right, they would not have sprang a EULA requirement on Canonical this late

    Believe it or not, the world does not revolve around Ubuntu Linux. Firefox is used in lots of other distros, not to mention MS-Windows and MacOS. I seriously doubt the timing had anything to do with anything related to any particular distro.

    That aside, THANK YOU MOZILLA FOUNDATION! It was silly to require any type of pop-up to begin with, but being "big enough" to admit it was a mistake and take it off is a VERY good move. Put your license and other info under "Help"... people will see it if/when necessary.

  7. Re:Sure, they're good guys by Legion_SB · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It doesn't. It wasn't even really an EULA the way we normally think of them. But that fact didn't get in the way of the nerd rage, unfortunately.

    --
    'a';DROP TABLE users; SELECT * FROM DATA WHERE name LIKE '%'... if you're reading this, it didn't work.
  8. Re:Sure, they're good guys by moosesocks · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seriously! How dare they respond to criticism!

    It was a stupid thing to do in the first place, but you've got to give them a lot of credit for reacting to the public outcry in a timely manner.

    Both Mozilla and Canonical know that there's little point in fostering any sort of "drama" within the F/OSS community.

    --
    -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
  9. I would rather they fixed the flash/pulse problem by grege1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    While I am pleased they have resolved the EULA issue, that is small stuff compared to the ongoing Ubuntu issue of flash and pulseaudio that causes Firefox to crash. There are a thousand and one "fixes" to be found and only a few work, and it only takes an update to undo the fix. I have resorted to using Seamonkey for stability. So, Canonical please just make it work - EULA or not.

  10. Re:People have complained about this since Firefox by RaceProUK · · Score: 2, Insightful

    IIRC, the EULA didn't pop up on first run, except on Windows, where it's expected.

    --
    No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
  11. Re:Sure, they're good guys by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That aside, THANK YOU MOZILLA FOUNDATION! It was silly to require any type of pop-up to begin with, but being "big enough" to admit it was a mistake and take it off is a VERY good move.

    I haven't read the details yet, but I agree with this sentiment 100% - everybody makes mistakes.
    The good guys are the ones who fix them in a timely fashion.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  12. Re:I would rather they fixed the flash/pulse probl by Naughty+Bob · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...that is small stuff compared to the ongoing Ubuntu issue of flash and pulseaudio that causes Firefox to crash.

    This is for sure the biggest issue currently facing the adoption of Linux.

    I have personally convinced 30 or so people (smart, but not especially technical) to try Ubuntu. Without fail they loved it. Even getting to grips with command line stuff (most of them have had to do similar things on windows boxes, and felt that Linux was much more elegant and sensible in this regard).

    How embarrassing then, to have to shrug my shoulders and admit defeat, because of the ubiquitous crashing of Flash.

    Only a couple of that initial 30 have stuck with it, the rest split pretty much evenly between OSX and Vista. They tell me they like these alternatives less, for cost, usability and even idealogical reasons, but YouTube works every time. Sad.

    --
    "Be light, stinging, insolent and melancholy"
  13. Re:First EULA by smittyoneeach · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Nobody ever got fired for using .Net

    --
    Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
  14. next: OpenOffice by bcrowell · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I hope Sun will take a hint from this, and stop trying to impose the LGPL as a click-through EULA in the Windows versions of OpenOffice. I teach a physics lab course where I'm trying to encourage students to use OpenOffice instead of Office. (One really practical reason is that they'll make a graph using Excel at school, email it to themselves, then try to open it at home using Excel and find out they can't, because they have an older version of Excel at home.) The really annoying thing is that when you install OOo, it forces each user to click through the EULA the first time on that machine. This is lame, because:

    1. The LGPL isn't a EULA, and doesn't require agreement from the end-user. You only have to agree to it if you want to redistribute it the sofwtare.
    2. It's a hassle for my students. We have 7 Windows machines in the room, and I have 75 students in my lab classes. That means students potentially have to click through the license 75*7=525 times per semester.
    3. But wait, there's more! These machines will soon be set up so that their hard disks are restored from a standard image every night at midnight. That guarantees that every student will have to click through the license every single time they start the software. That means if every student uses OOo once a week in lab, we potentially have the EULA being clicked through 1200 times per semester. Ugh!
    1. Re:next: OpenOffice by shaitand · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Here's a thought, use per machine accounts instead of per user accounts and click through the EULAs BEFORE imaging the drive.

  15. EULA by another name by Mr.Ned · · Score: 2, Insightful

    From the groklaw link: "Instead of a EULA, the new page you get on install is a notices page with no "I agree" requirement, along with a link to an optional services agreement, and instructions there on how to avoid having to accept the services, if you don't want them."

    Let me get this straight. There's a popup window with legalese that includes an agreement that you have to figure out how to opt out of? So it's like a EULA, but they just assume you agree, and the "I Agree" button has been renamed "Next"?

    I don't see how this is significantly different.

  16. Re:Sure, they're good guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Actually, now it feels like they sprang it on everyone expecting to get complaints, so they can go the less intrusive option and have people not complain about that. Would you have complained if they started with this one?

  17. Re:Awesome Bar by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You still haven't said why you think the awesome bar is anything other than awesome.

    I really don't know what your problem is with it. But, ultimately, Mozilla decides what Firefox is.. if you don't like it, roll your own or use a competitor.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.