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."

34 of 154 comments (clear)

  1. First EULA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    by reading this post, you agree to mod me to +5, Informative.

    1. Re:First EULA by TuringTest · · Score: 4, Funny

      No mod points. Launch your lawyers.

      --
      Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
    2. Re:First EULA by noidentity · · Score: 5, Funny

      No mod points. Launch your lawyers.

      May I suggest the sun as a destination?

    3. Re:First EULA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Java doesn't need any lawyers. The speed of their programs are so fast th

    4. Re:First EULA by Kjella · · Score: 4, Funny

      May I suggest the sun as a destination?

      I'd suggest a black hole. Both to be really sure and because it's fitting.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    5. Re:First EULA by EaglemanBSA · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, but with the LHC broken down, we won't have any of those handy for a few months yet.

      --
      Quiz: True or False -- On a scale of 1 to 10, what is your middle name?
    6. Re:First EULA by Petrushka · · Score: 5, Funny

      [Data] "The alien ship has just opened its forward hatches and released thousands of humanoid shaped objects."
      [Picard] "Magnify forward viewer on the alien craft"
      [Riker] "Good God captain! Those are humans floating straight toward the Borg ship with no life support suits! How can they survive the tortures of deep space ?!"
      [Data] "I don't believe that those are humans sir, if you will look closer I believe you will see that they are carrying something recognized by twenty-first century man as doe skin leather briefcases, and wearing Armani suits"
      [Riker and Picard together horrified] "Lawyers !!"
      [Geordi] "It can't be. All the Lawyers were rounded up and sent hurtling into the sun in 2017 during the Great Awakening."
      [Data] "True, but appearently some must have survived."
      [Riker] "They have surrounded the Borg ship and are covering it with all types of papers."
      [Data] "I believe that is known in ancient venacular as 'red tape' it often proves fatal."
      [Riker] "They're tearing the Borg to pieces !"
      [Picard] "Turn off the monitors. I can't stand to watch, not even the Borg deserve that."

      Dredged up here via Google (no idea of the original source).

    7. Re:First EULA by ScrewMaster · · Score: 5, Funny

      May I suggest the sun as a destination?

      I'd suggest a black hole. Both to be really sure and because it's fitting.

      Well, I think the Sun would be a better choice. If it's true that black holes are portals to alternate universes ... well, how would you feel if the people from one of those universes sent all pf their lawyers to us? Downright unneighborly, if you ask me.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    8. Re:First EULA by Kneo24 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Too bad the black holes it could create don't matter.

    9. Re:First EULA by Petrushka · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Some further research suggests it may originate from a BBS, probably in 1994. The earliest Usenet posting of it shown on Google Groups is from July 1994. I find the joke even more pleasing now that I know it pre-dates Windows 95 by at least a month!

  2. Sure, they're good guys by pchan- · · Score: 5, Informative

    If they had a desire to get this right, they would not have sprang a EULA requirement on Canonical this late into the release process (next Ubuntu release is in a couple of weeks). This is a reaction to the negative press they've been getting. Thanks, Slashdot!

    1. 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.

    2. Re:Sure, they're good guys by Kagura · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A purely honest question: Why does the EULA issue in the article matter at all?

    3. 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
    4. 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.
    5. Re:Sure, they're good guys by shaitand · · Score: 4, Informative

      EULA are counter to the spirit of open and free software. Software does not require a license to use, you have the right to use software as long as you acquired it legally.

      Licenses like the MPL or the GPL are for those who wish to modify and distribute software, because those activities are restricted by copyright law and the licenses are needed to allow you to do them.

      EULA's are contracts that force users to give up some of their rights or regulate how they use the software beyond the restrictions imposed by copyright.

      Mozilla's EULA was relatively benign as far as EULAs go but a EULA just the same. Since having a EULA means an app isn't free software Ubuntu couldn't/wouldn't include the EULA version in Ubuntu.

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. 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?

  6. 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 Light303 · · Score: 4, Informative

      As far as i remember, Debian kicked Firefox because its logo is non-free. So i guess it is not affected by these EULA changes.

    2. Re:Debian by nhaines · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, unfortunately the problem with Debian is that the restrictive trademarks on the "Mozilla Firefox" name and icon conflict with the Debian Free Software Guidelines.

      Mozilla wouldn't allow Debian to put the name and logo on anything that wasn't built from unmodified source from Mozilla's servers. This would have prevented Debian from customizing, integrating, and maintaining older versions of Firefox (Mozilla's response was for Debian to stop using 1.x versions of Firefox even in stable).

      Canonical came to some sort of agreement with Mozilla to allow Ubuntu to continue using the name and logo with their modifications. I never heard what exactly it took to come to such an agreement.

    3. Re:Debian by markdavis · · Score: 3, Informative

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

      Probably not. The issue that Debian had is with the restrictions on the Firefox name and logo. Mozilla didn't want people to change the code and then still call it "Firefox", which is a registered trademark. As far as I know, those restrictions have not gone away, they are just not requiring a first-run pop-up with EULA agreement.

    4. Re:Debian by markdavis · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Apparently Mandriva found a way around it too, because their packages of Firefox are modified in many ways from the official source, too (different icons, different file browser, Font changes, non-default color scheme, preloads of different bookmarks, etc).

    5. Re:Debian by Kjella · · Score: 3, Informative

      Probably not. The issue that Debian had is with the restrictions on the Firefox name and logo. Mozilla didn't want people to change the code and then still call it "Firefox", which is a registered trademark. As far as I know, those restrictions have not gone away, they are just not requiring a first-run pop-up with EULA agreement.

      Yup, it's Windows vs Linux distribution meeting head on. On Windows they have the problem that people will take Firefox, include adware/malware/trojans/viruses and distribute it as Firefox since getting random .exe files from the Internet is par for the course anyway. On Linux I never saw that problem, everyone installs it from the repositories which have the real version. Since Debian will not take Debian-specific agreements, it follows that if Debian could use the trademark everyone else must be able to as well for both Linux and Windows versions. So to protect their Windows installers, they can not let Debian use their trademark. It's strange that Firefox is the only one to feel this problem strong enough to do it, then again they have a broad userbase that's not the most technically inclined compared to a lot of other developer/server OSS tools.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    6. 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 ]
    7. Re:Debian by nhaines · · Score: 5, Informative

      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. What was unfortunate is that permission had already been granted and Debian was acting in good faith when Mozilla entirely changed direction.

      Mozilla expressly disallowed Debian to continue to maintain Firefox 1.5, which they are required to do for Debian stable by their social contract. More explicitly, Mozilla told Debian that they refused to review any patches which Debian might submit for products that Mozilla no longer maintained. Mozilla didn't seem to be interested in being reasonable on this point. Labeling their guidelines as "restrictive" refers to the set of rules that must be followed, not the instance where rules are being broken.

    8. Re:Debian by novakyu · · Score: 4, Informative

      I believe that Debian was prevented from accepting a similar agreement because it in some way conflicted with their ideology.

      Not "in some way". It conflicts with an explicitly stated guideline, in particular,

      8. License Must Not Be Specific to Debian.

      If Debian can work out an agreement, that agreement needs to be with the entire free software community; the agreement must not be limited to something named Debian (after all, if the agreement becomes invalid when someone takes that component out of Debian, then by the general consensus, that component is not free).

  7. Re:People have complained about this since Firefox by Kjella · · Score: 4, Informative

    Why is it that it took a major player like Canonical to get Mozilla to finally respond to their community?

    Users can complain, but distros can do something about it by ganging up and shipping it rebranded only? Of course in the short term that's a minor issue for Mozilla but if it was established that Firefox on Linux == Iceweasel (or whatever, lousy name) and Linux becomes more popular through UMPCs and the like, Mozilla could stand to lose a lot of brand power and have no power to do anything about it. It'd be just like CentOS except the original isn't available, how long would it take for the new name to settle? Not long at all, I wager. After all, it'd still be the exact same browser down to the last bit, not like switching people to another browser. Mozilla is caving here because they got little to gain and everything to lose.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  8. 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.

  9. 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 bigbigbison · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I haven't tried it in a while so I can't remember but might the portable version of openoffice.org be a solution? http://portableapps.com/apps/office/openoffice_portable

      --
      http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players