Typed very quickly--sorry if this does not make much sense:
*If* MF are going down this route--I've had my suspicions for some time and even more so now, but my grandparent post may have been a little presumptious--then, the MPL would allow the code to be forked, so long-term there would be no problem, but MF could make it a pain to do so--in fact maybe peeps should download what they can off Mozilla.Org. I, also, don't know how clear it is in the CVS who owns all the copyright and what everything is licensed under. It is possible for them to play on uncertainty.
Personally, I think for the very reason that it would be forked, MF will not go the whole hog (and make it `more' proprietary if that is possible--bit like "more free" or "more unique"). They may (and have to some extent) play on the uncertainty surrounding which bits are proprietary and which are free though. If I'm being really cynical, one could argue that the whole popular NYT-ad &c marketing stunts are about advertising Mozilla Foundation & Firefox so they get popular with the non-freedom-aware masses, so that if it forked most users would still use the MF version regardless of whether it is proprietary or not.
It is possible that MF `only' want to create a cloud of uncertainty over whether the software they release is free or proprietary so they can threaten lawsuits against someone or something. IMO, however, this is worse than making it proprietary. At least M$ are honest and freely admit that their software is proprietary (& you have to sell your soul to them &c...). In fact if an organisations attempts to confuse/cloud what a piece of software's licensing terms are, this is, theoretically, the time whne everyone (even proprietary-software lovers) should ditch it and try and fork if legally possible. MF are trying to release Moz & Fx under several different licenses already (some contradicting each other--in fact the new "EULA" has terms to deal with contradicting MF licenses). They also have a "trademark license" which is actually a copyright license in disguise. This sort of legal confusion is starting to piss of me (and probably other users and developers).
NB: Even before the EULA gets implemented (if it does), the artwork and crash-reporter are proprietary, thereby making Firefox proprietary. Also it already asks you to agree to MPL (which is pointless) when installing.
in the UK (where they would not sell the before). I guess, now they have stopped selling in the US, my chances of finding one are even thinner.
They are some of the best PDA's around, but the manufacturer don't appear to want to sell them to anyone. See the review by a fellow Ukonian, "A Free Software PDA", for more on the latest models features (and scarcity). There are more in-depth reviews around too if you google.
I have been a fan of Firefox since before 0.1 and just bought $80 of stuff from the Mozilla Store, but I do not like the way the Mozilla Foundation is going.
Personally, I think if they better integrated themselves with the FOSS community and started using traditional FOSS methods (as well as enocuranging the FOSS community to spread the word), this would help their marketing a lot better than an ad in the NYT. I do not object to the ad of itself--it may be a good idea--but it is an example of the way MF are thinking--specifically thinking ("monopoly"..."stagnant"...) about abusing their power over what is a brilliant piece of software.
>>in open source history<< (from story)
The *real* *question* is whether Firefox is free or open-source? My real objection is the attempts of people at MF to make Firefox neither (i.e.: proprietary). The whole thing about making the name and artwork proprietary a while back was not so bad (although it certainly led people to question MF's morality), as it was easy to remove references to "Firefox" or "Mozilla" and all the relevant artwork (but it still means that official builds are not free and do not follow DFSG).
The latest proposal <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=15 6302&action=view> by the powers that be is that Firefox 1.0 be distrubuted under what they call an "end user license agreement" that disallows modification or distribution, and that restricts what you can use Firefox for--similar to the terms of Microsoft's software. If this happens, I will not be using Firefox in the future. It might even be argued that developers of Mozilla's software should have taken head of warnings about the NPL and MPL by FSF et al. This is an example of why copyleft is superior to less-restrictive licenses (especially ones that put less restrictions on certain organisations as special cases).
I was not arguing that it needs more features or that it is not as polished as MS Office or the other free-software alternatives (althought it probably isn't but give them a chance). Instead I was hypothesising that, however good MS Office and OO.o are at what they do, what they do (at least in the word-processing dept, but, also, arguably, elsewhere) is not really very useful or efficient for applications as opposed to alternatives. That is MS-Office style "office suites" (and, for that matter, many of the components even when reomved from that paradigm) are not nessecary in most business and home situations.
I'm not trolling and I'm sure OO.o us useful in getting MS-Office lovers weaned off that to something that is at least free software.
However, am I the only one that things--however great the work done on it--OO.o is just a bad imitation of MS Office with all the lack of usability included (but,that, like all imitations, doesn't work quite as well as the original).
Does anyone here use really OO.o a lot and/or prefer it to say LaTeX (or other typesetting systems), Abiword (which at least used to import MSWord better than OO.o) or Scribus. It seems to me that OO.o not only copies all the worst bit of the word-processing model, but all the worst bits of the notorious MSWord sub-model.
Anyway, it is really good to see that governments are getting the message that it is worng for them to use proproetary software (especially to store gov. data), or at least they are getting the message that free software is cheaper and more reliable.
And it is even better if you aren't a great programmer and have a crap product, but convince everyone otherwise right?
(Personally, I think we should reward the people who helped the world the most as opposed those who persuaded the world to give them the most money for the least work; but that is just my opinion.)
Ye, the FTC money-laundering guys just got in touch becuase they wanted to help them out by suggesting MS and SCO laundered their money on a slower wash cycle. Think, if your in the US, you have to pay these FTC guys? Sheesshhh...
Are they real DVD-videos, or are they CSS encrypted?
(Seriously, I want to know; because I can't be bothered buying from peeps who can't be bothered making proper DVD videos, or want to try and stop me using their products after I've bought them, and I can't be bothered installing DeCSS.)
You're belief that my post was incorrect is based on a confusion between (one-way) licenses (or permissions) and (two-way) agreements (or contracts). These are semantically diametric in the English language, and those legal systems were they both exist.
Please refer to the sibling posts (replies to your post) by sploo22 and Lochin Rabbar--both of which are entirely correct in their interpretation of what I meant and what the law actually says. Also, for the distinction between agreements and licenses and why the GNU GPL is not a EULA, see my cousin post.
"License", but a EULA is not a license it is a license agreement--an oxymoron which I think means that it is actually an agreement or contract but one that is a bit like a license (or that the agreement's author wants you to think is).
[NB: that doesn't make much sense as license and agreements are diametrically opposed from a legal perspective: the former is a (not necessarily solicited) one-way permission to do something (e.g.: letting someone fish in your lake); the latter, a two-way agreement between parties involving reward for both sides (e.g.: buying and selling).]
Of course the term, "EULA", doesn't actually have any agreed on definition, and seems primarily designed to confuse, but I think you'll find that documents that are called EULAs by their authors usually fit my definition --at least in that they are never licenses anyway and are trying to be contracts (even where invalid ones).
I'm seeing increasing numbers of OSS software projects with installation programs (e.g. Windows ones) insisting that the end user accept the GPL before allowing them to install.
There are two possible legal issues, that I can think of, with that:
Firstly, depending how the text of such a dialog box is phrased, it could (and is likely to) violate the "copyright" (EIR&DR) of third-party copyright holders of parts of that software--who have chosen to release only under the GNU GPL (or a less permissive license)--by attempting to put restrictions on use of the software.
Secondly, one may argue that the inclusion of the GNU GPL (linked) within the software itself results in that software being non-free as the GNU GPL is non-free (at least the preamble is and the FSF have given mixed messages about the rest).
we need you to accept that, because that's where the "no warranty" agreement is
It is difficult to argue against that because it is an invalid argument. Nonetheless, there are several counter-arguments that I can think of:
That does not mean that the user has to agree to not have warranty protection, just that they mention tha somewhere.
Also, they do not have to also include the GNU GPL.
Also, AFAIK, warranty protection would only apply if they are selling it to you in which case they can explain that to you at point of sale anyway.
The Mozilla Foundation want to make users agree to the following EULA before installing Firefox. Looks like a lot of legalese, but might it not make Firefox non-free?
== LICENSE AGREEMENTS
YOU MUST AGREE TO THE FOLLOWING LICENSE AGREEMENTS TO USE THE MOZILLA FIREFOX BROWSER AND ANY ACCOMPANYING SOFTWARE COMPONENTS. WHEN YOU INSTALL MOZILLA FIREFOX YOU WILL BE GIVEN THE OPTION OF INSTALLING ADDITIONAL COMPONENTS FROM MOZILLA AND THIRD PARTY PROVIDERS. THE MOZILLA FIREFOX END-USER LICENSE AGREEMENT GOVERNS USE OF ALL OF THE COMPONENTS. TO USE MOZILLA FIREFOX AND ANY OF THE OTHER AVAILABLE COMPONENTS, YOU MUST AGREE TO THE MOZILLA BROWSER END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT. ALL OF THE ADDITIONAL COMPONENTS AVAILABLE FOR DOWNLOAD WITH MOZILLA FIREFOX ARE REFERRED TO COLLECTIVELY HEREIN AS THE "COMPONENTS."
MOZILLA FIREFOX END-USER LICENSE AGREEMENT Redistribution Or Rental Not Permitted
BY CLICKING THE "ACCEPT" BUTTON OR INSTALLING OR USING THE MOZILLA FIREFOX SOFTWARE OR ANY COMPONENTS, YOU ARE CONSENTING TO BE BOUND BY AND BECOME A PARTY TO THIS MOZILLA FIREFOX END USER LICENCE AGREEMENT (THE "AGREEMENT"), AS THE "LICENSEE."
IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS AGREEMENT, YOU MUST NOT CLICK THE "ACCEPT" BUTTON, YOU MUST NOT INSTALL OR USE THE MOZILLA FIREFOX SOFTWARE OR ANY OF THE COMPONENTS, AND YOU DO NOT BECOME A LICENSEE UNDER THIS AGREEMENT.
1. INTRODUCTION. As used in this Agreement,"Licensor" shall mean Mozilla Foundation. The use of the Components shall be governed by this Agreement. In this Agreement, "Product" refers to the Mozilla Firefox browser and any of the Components that Licensee has elected to install. If more than one license agreement was provided for the Product, and the terms vary, the order of precedence of those license agreements is as follows: a signed agreement, a license agreement available for review on the Mozilla.org website, a printed agreement provided with the Product, an electronic agreement provided with the Product.
2. LATENT DISTRIBUTION OF COMPONENTS. The Components are installed through different mechanisms in order to ensure that the Mozilla Firefox download will be quick and convenient. In some cases the entire Component is downloaded concurrently with Mozilla Firefox and in others a small piece of software (the "Stub") will be installed initially with Mozilla Firefox that can then "call out" over the Internet to a web server and complete installation of the Component on your computer at a later time (i) during the installation process, (ii) when the Stub detects that you have available bandwidth or (iii) when you have requested use of a function that requires such Component.
3. LICENSE GRANT. Licensor grants Licensee a non-exclusive and non-transferable license to install and use for personal or internal business purposes the executable code version of the Product, provided any copy must contain all of the original proprietary notices. This license does not entitle Licensee to receive from Licensor hard-copy documentation, technical support, telephone assistance, or enhancements or updates to the Product.
4. RESTRICTIONS. Except as otherwise expressly permitted in this Agreement, or in another Licensor agreement to which Licensee is a party, Licensee may not: (i) modify or create any derivative works of the Product or documentation, including customization, translation or localization; (ii) decompile, disassemble, reverse engineer, or otherwise attempt to derive the source code for the Product (except to the extent applicable laws specifically prohibit such restriction, or the underlying ideas or algorithms of the Product; (iii) redistribute, encumber, sell, rent, lease, sublicense, or otherwise transfer rights to the Product; (iv) remove or alter any trademark, logo, copyright or other proprietary notices, legends, symbols or labels in the Product;(v) use the Product in any way that violates any Terms of Service or Privacy Policy that apply to Licensee or any laws; (vi) authori
I'm curious now. Can you post them? This would also have the consequence that/. might get taken down for a while, so a lot of geeks like myself might have to go out into the scary room with the big blue ceiling--it could be a life-changing experience.
That is very true. It is also Bush's warped way of putting all the countries and people who he *is* going to war on off their gaurd by going to war against abstract concepts one cannot fight (and they don't have any intention of) then randomly bombing a few countries for fun at the same time.
Slashdot Mirror
Typed very quickly--sorry if this does not make much sense:
*If* MF are going down this route--I've had my suspicions for some time and even more so now, but my grandparent post may have been a little presumptious--then, the MPL would allow the code to be forked, so long-term there would be no problem, but MF could make it a pain to do so--in fact maybe peeps should download what they can off Mozilla.Org. I, also, don't know how clear it is in the CVS who owns all the copyright and what everything is licensed under. It is possible for them to play on uncertainty.
Personally, I think for the very reason that it would be forked, MF will not go the whole hog (and make it `more' proprietary if that is possible--bit like "more free" or "more unique"). They may (and have to some extent) play on the uncertainty surrounding which bits are proprietary and which are free though. If I'm being really cynical, one could argue that the whole popular NYT-ad &c marketing stunts are about advertising Mozilla Foundation & Firefox so they get popular with the non-freedom-aware masses, so that if it forked most users would still use the MF version regardless of whether it is proprietary or not.
It is possible that MF `only' want to create a cloud of uncertainty over whether the software they release is free or proprietary so they can threaten lawsuits against someone or something. IMO, however, this is worse than making it proprietary. At least M$ are honest and freely admit that their software is proprietary (& you have to sell your soul to them &c...). In fact if an organisations attempts to confuse/cloud what a piece of software's licensing terms are, this is, theoretically, the time whne everyone (even proprietary-software lovers) should ditch it and try and fork if legally possible. MF are trying to release Moz & Fx under several different licenses already (some contradicting each other--in fact the new "EULA" has terms to deal with contradicting MF licenses). They also have a "trademark license" which is actually a copyright license in disguise. This sort of legal confusion is starting to piss of me (and probably other users and developers).
NB: Even before the EULA gets implemented (if it does), the artwork and crash-reporter are proprietary, thereby making Firefox proprietary. Also it already asks you to agree to MPL (which is pointless) when installing.
Sure. If you explain what "it" stands for (oh...and what on Earth does the BSD license to do with Firefox--I was talking about the MPL and NPL).
Different functions (whatever that means) maybe...but same RL applications. What applications do you, for instance, use OO.o writer for?
They are some of the best PDA's around, but the manufacturer don't appear to want to sell them to anyone. See the review by a fellow Ukonian, "A Free Software PDA", for more on the latest models features (and scarcity). There are more in-depth reviews around too if you google.
If anyone knows where abouts I might get one...
I have been a fan of Firefox since before 0.1 and just bought $80 of stuff from the Mozilla Store, but I do not like the way the Mozilla Foundation is going.
5 6302&action=view> by the powers that be is that Firefox 1.0 be distrubuted under what they call an "end user license agreement" that disallows modification or distribution, and that restricts what you can use Firefox for--similar to the terms of Microsoft's software. If this happens, I will not be using Firefox in the future. It might even be argued that developers of Mozilla's software should have taken head of warnings about the NPL and MPL by FSF et al. This is an example of why copyleft is superior to less-restrictive licenses (especially ones that put less restrictions on certain organisations as special cases).
Personally, I think if they better integrated themselves with the FOSS community and started using traditional FOSS methods (as well as enocuranging the FOSS community to spread the word), this would help their marketing a lot better than an ad in the NYT. I do not object to the ad of itself--it may be a good idea--but it is an example of the way MF are thinking--specifically thinking ("monopoly"..."stagnant"...) about abusing their power over what is a brilliant piece of software.
>>in open source history<< (from story)
The *real* *question* is whether Firefox is free or open-source? My real objection is the attempts of people at MF to make Firefox neither (i.e.: proprietary). The whole thing about making the name and artwork proprietary a while back was not so bad (although it certainly led people to question MF's morality), as it was easy to remove references to "Firefox" or "Mozilla" and all the relevant artwork (but it still means that official builds are not free and do not follow DFSG).
The latest proposal <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=1
>>don't bitch and...<<
I was not arguing that it needs more features or that it is not as polished as MS Office or the other free-software alternatives (althought it probably isn't but give them a chance). Instead I was hypothesising that, however good MS Office and OO.o are at what they do, what they do (at least in the word-processing dept, but, also, arguably, elsewhere) is not really very useful or efficient for applications as opposed to alternatives. That is MS-Office style "office suites" (and, for that matter, many of the components even when reomved from that paradigm) are not nessecary in most business and home situations.
I meant reward with praise, but, sure, s/praise/money if you like.
I'm not trolling and I'm sure OO.o us useful in getting MS-Office lovers weaned off that to something that is at least free software.
However, am I the only one that things--however great the work done on it--OO.o is just a bad imitation of MS Office with all the lack of usability included (but,that, like all imitations, doesn't work quite as well as the original).
Does anyone here use really OO.o a lot and/or prefer it to say LaTeX (or other typesetting systems), Abiword (which at least used to import MSWord better than OO.o) or Scribus. It seems to me that OO.o not only copies all the worst bit of the word-processing model, but all the worst bits of the notorious MSWord sub-model.
Anyway, it is really good to see that governments are getting the message that it is worng for them to use proproetary software (especially to store gov. data), or at least they are getting the message that free software is cheaper and more reliable.
And it is even better if you aren't a great programmer and have a crap product, but convince everyone otherwise right?
(Personally, I think we should reward the people who helped the world the most as opposed those who persuaded the world to give them the most money for the least work; but that is just my opinion.)
Nice...I'll buy a copy when it is definite that it has no CSS.
s/becuase/because
s/your/you're
need sleep..
>>Perfectly legal!<<
Ye, the FTC money-laundering guys just got in touch becuase they wanted to help them out by suggesting MS and SCO laundered their money on a slower wash cycle. Think, if your in the US, you have to pay these FTC guys? Sheesshhh...
Are they real DVD-videos, or are they CSS encrypted? (Seriously, I want to know; because I can't be bothered buying from peeps who can't be bothered making proper DVD videos, or want to try and stop me using their products after I've bought them, and I can't be bothered installing DeCSS.)
Please refer to the sibling posts (replies to your post) by sploo22 and Lochin Rabbar--both of which are entirely correct in their interpretation of what I meant and what the law actually says. Also, for the distinction between agreements and licenses and why the GNU GPL is not a EULA, see my cousin post.
[NB: that doesn't make much sense as license and agreements are diametrically opposed from a legal perspective: the former is a (not necessarily solicited) one-way permission to do something (e.g.: letting someone fish in your lake); the latter, a two-way agreement between parties involving reward for both sides (e.g.: buying and selling).]
Of course the term, "EULA", doesn't actually have any agreed on definition, and seems primarily designed to confuse, but I think you'll find that documents that are called EULAs by their authors usually fit my definition --at least in that they are never licenses anyway and are trying to be contracts (even where invalid ones).
There are two possible legal issues, that I can think of, with that:- Firstly, depending how the text of such a dialog box is phrased, it could (and is likely to) violate the "copyright" (EIR&DR) of third-party copyright holders of parts of that software--who have chosen to release only under the GNU GPL (or a less permissive license)--by attempting to put restrictions on use of the software.
- Secondly, one may argue that the inclusion of the GNU GPL (linked) within the software itself results in that software being non-free as the GNU GPL is non-free (at least the preamble is and the FSF have given mixed messages about the rest).
It is difficult to argue against that because it is an invalid argument. Nonetheless, there are several counter-arguments that I can think of:The Mozilla Foundation want to make users agree to the following EULA before installing Firefox. Looks like a lot of legalese, but might it not make Firefox non-free?
==
LICENSE AGREEMENTS
YOU MUST AGREE TO THE FOLLOWING LICENSE AGREEMENTS TO USE THE MOZILLA FIREFOX BROWSER AND ANY ACCOMPANYING SOFTWARE COMPONENTS. WHEN YOU INSTALL MOZILLA FIREFOX YOU WILL BE GIVEN THE OPTION OF INSTALLING ADDITIONAL COMPONENTS FROM MOZILLA AND THIRD PARTY PROVIDERS. THE MOZILLA FIREFOX END-USER LICENSE AGREEMENT GOVERNS USE OF ALL OF THE COMPONENTS. TO USE MOZILLA FIREFOX AND ANY OF THE OTHER AVAILABLE COMPONENTS, YOU MUST AGREE TO THE MOZILLA BROWSER END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT. ALL OF THE ADDITIONAL COMPONENTS AVAILABLE FOR DOWNLOAD WITH MOZILLA FIREFOX ARE REFERRED TO COLLECTIVELY HEREIN AS THE "COMPONENTS."
MOZILLA FIREFOX END-USER LICENSE AGREEMENT
Redistribution Or Rental Not Permitted
BY CLICKING THE "ACCEPT" BUTTON OR INSTALLING OR USING THE MOZILLA FIREFOX SOFTWARE OR ANY COMPONENTS, YOU ARE CONSENTING TO BE BOUND BY AND BECOME A PARTY TO THIS MOZILLA FIREFOX END USER LICENCE AGREEMENT (THE "AGREEMENT"), AS THE "LICENSEE."
IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS AGREEMENT, YOU MUST NOT CLICK THE "ACCEPT" BUTTON, YOU MUST NOT INSTALL OR USE THE MOZILLA FIREFOX SOFTWARE OR ANY OF THE COMPONENTS, AND YOU DO NOT BECOME A LICENSEE UNDER THIS AGREEMENT.
1. INTRODUCTION. As used in this Agreement,"Licensor" shall mean Mozilla Foundation. The use of the Components shall be governed by this Agreement. In this Agreement, "Product" refers to the Mozilla Firefox browser and any of the Components that Licensee has elected to install. If more than one license agreement was provided for the Product, and the terms vary, the order of precedence of those license agreements is as follows: a signed agreement, a license agreement available for review on the Mozilla.org website, a printed agreement provided with the Product, an electronic agreement provided with the Product.
2. LATENT DISTRIBUTION OF COMPONENTS. The Components are installed through different mechanisms in order to ensure that the Mozilla Firefox download will be quick and convenient. In some cases the entire Component is downloaded concurrently with Mozilla Firefox and in others a small piece of software (the "Stub") will be installed initially with Mozilla Firefox that can then "call out" over the Internet to a web server and complete installation of the Component on your computer at a later time (i) during the installation process, (ii) when the Stub detects that you have available bandwidth or (iii) when you have requested use of a function that requires such Component.
3. LICENSE GRANT. Licensor grants Licensee a non-exclusive and non-transferable license to install and use for personal or internal business purposes the executable code version of the Product, provided any copy must contain all of the original proprietary notices. This license does not entitle Licensee to receive from Licensor hard-copy documentation, technical support, telephone assistance, or enhancements or updates to the Product.
4. RESTRICTIONS. Except as otherwise expressly permitted in this Agreement, or in another Licensor agreement to which Licensee is a party, Licensee may not: (i) modify or create any derivative works of the Product or documentation, including customization, translation or localization; (ii) decompile, disassemble, reverse engineer, or otherwise attempt to derive the source code for the Product (except to the extent applicable laws specifically prohibit such restriction, or the underlying ideas or algorithms of the Product; (iii) redistribute, encumber, sell, rent, lease, sublicense, or otherwise transfer rights to the Product; (iv) remove or alter any trademark, logo, copyright or other proprietary notices, legends, symbols or labels in the Product;(v) use the Product in any way that violates any Terms of Service or Privacy Policy that apply to Licensee or any laws; (vi) authori
The GPL is a license not a EULA.
They could've just emailed in a nicer photo of themselves and I'm sure IM would have put it up for them--bringing in the FBI was a bit much.
(Personally I don't think the world's best photographers could make their ugly mugs look any better than that.)
(especially compared to Switzerland (not Sweden) which is the most free and demcratic country in the world)
I'm curious now. Can you post them? This would also have the consequence that /. might get taken down for a while, so a lot of geeks like myself might have to go out into the scary room with the big blue ceiling--it could be a life-changing experience.
Umm...they're the FBI.
Glad to see someone on /. has finally worked out how this works. (It must be a slow news day even for /.)
That is very true. It is also Bush's warped way of putting all the countries and people who he *is* going to war on off their gaurd by going to war against abstract concepts one cannot fight (and they don't have any intention of) then randomly bombing a few countries for fun at the same time.
>>(including our prezodent, so the rumours go)
I agree with your side of the argument, but you really didn't help it by mentioning that case study of the effects of drugs.
...and Skull and Bones...oh sorry...you already mentioned the US government.