…

This is from: http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9472&Itemid=1

Regarding Freedom 0, if you have to agree to certain restrictions in order to use the software, then you are potentially being limited in your use of the software. It depends on what those restrictions are, but, if they restrict your usage, there’s a problem. Do I have to start worrying that I’ve accidentally violated some implied contract by playing around with the anti-phishing features enabled? This sounds like something that should be discussed, and I haven’t seen any satisfying informative comment on this issue yet.

There’s also another Freedom-limiting part of Firefox that people seem unaware of: the logo. The logo is not licensed with the rest of the code. It’s All Rights Reserved. It’s also protected by trademark law. Making the artwork proprietary limits the four freedoms beyond trademark law’s (mostly reasonable, consumer-protecting) limits. So, to be more precise, I do not have freedoms 0-3 with Firefox. I do, however, have them with Minefield…maybe.

You may run Firefox for whatever you want.

You’re correct about Pidgin: it doesn’t require to accept the GPL to install it, it is just informative. So, you’d prefer to have this same behavior in Firefox? I guess it could be just as effective.

I’ve read the post and comments Jakob linked (thanks!). Yes it is informative. And it agrees that points 5 and 6, related to web services and web services are beyond the GPL and Mozilla may need to address them.

However it seems to me Mozilla’s point is not only covering its behind (which the licenses already do to some large degree) but also informing the user.

Mitchell has already announced that a license agreement will be worked out (http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2008/09/16/firefox-without-eulas-update/), most likely won’t be called an EULA, but will address Mozilla’s web services and privacy concerns. It will also try not to “block the flow”, which is of course welcomed.

People on Slashdot are already feeling she’s just describing a EULA after all.

This funny comment makes a point on the trademark notification:
Do they honestly believe I can use Coke’s trademark anyway I want merely because Coke doesn’t come with a EULA?! – http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=965877&cid=25029365

So, having a EULA (that requires agreement) not only violates Freedom 0, but is also completely redundant. I am not a lawyer. You really need to read the post to which Jakob linked. It’s quite informative, and dispels a lot of FUD you’re spreading here (which is a shame, since your blog is excellent).

And an EULA is necessary but not on those conditions.

“That’s not the Mozilla point. The Firefox version that is bundled with Ubuntu is somewhat different than the one Mozilla makes available at mozilla.com: it includes a few bookmarks to Ubuntu sites, it is transformed into a Ubuntu package, it handles updates differently, add-ons are available through Ubuntu’s package system, and from what I’ve read, libraries linking is also different.”

That’s what I’m saying… and I don’t see any problem on that.

Cheers.

“BTW I see this article was written by a Firefox’s fan… not from an objective point of view… this is just my feeling.” If you mean a person very interested in the Mozilla project, yes you nailed it. If you mean a zealot, definitely not. How objective my point of view is… I do my best but that’s… well… subjective.

Annoyance aside, can someone tell why it’s the EULA is not necessary?

Mozilla EULA is the GPL, MPL, LGPL plus terms covering trademarks, web services (updates, add-ons, antiphishing, antimalware protection) and the privacy policy.

All the titles you mention have a license. Some of them may not show it to you. Is it a better policy not to show them?

It would help the discussion if people actually state why they believe an EULA is unnecessary, or how it disrespects Firefox users.

Just to clarify, I’m not saying the EULA is necessary. I am saying I can see why it may be necessary. At the same time I don’t see how it couldn’t be necessary.

Orlando made a point that chances that someone may actually sue are very small. But Mozilla has a chance to reduce it even more with the EULA.

There is at least a precedent that Mozilla will take the risk if there is no way to avoid it: Firefox 3.1 will bundle Ogg Vorbis and Theora open source codecs which has the potential of violating a submarine patent. There’s not much Mozilla can do to reduce risk and still it’s taking it.

BTW I see this article was written by a Firefox’s fan… not from an objective point of view… this is just my feeling.

Thanks.

Paranoia? Don’t think so. We don’t see germs but still wash our hands, right?

Also, word EULA is probably one of most hated words in open source world. Ever. Surely, Mozilla can rather follow needs and demands of their crazy lawyers rather than respect their users. But who will be use it? Lawyers? Huh, funny :)

I’m thinking that lots of opensource zealots who helped Firefox to became popular by advertising and improving it it now really angry and feel like Mozilla fooled them. Used them to get popular. And … what? EULA? With ALL these restrictions? Such users always liked Mozilla for freedom and innovations. I have no idea why Mozilla is going to kill this impression and rather stick to (potentially very harmful in long term) view. But I’m pretty sure that now people realized than they need truly free browser. Which lacks THIS level of bureaucracy, idiocy and annoyance. Debian guys were able to see into future a bit further than anyone else. So there is IceWeasel. But … hmm… WebKit already got a huge work on it. Google recently proved that WebKit is not a joke but rather quite promising and powerful engine. I bet now almost all opensource people will turn to forging and polishing WebKit to have a really free browser. Is this begin of the end for Gecko? I’m unsure, but maybe it is.

As for me, I’d advocated and advertised Firefox a lot. But now I will think twice before doing so. Mozilla has proven that it is not really open source corporation and their long term goals are looking questionable for me since my (user) convenience valued lower than moron demands from lawyers. I do not need f…ng EULAs. I need free and innovative browser. If it worked for years as is, why now there is urgent need to screw anyone up? Just because Mozilla got popular enough and can afford it? Then, Mozilla will be strongly backslashed by angry zealots and let’s admit they have a good reason. I’m unhappy with such move too and will consider using another browser if all this crap means I will see (most hated) word “EULA” in Linux regularly. Surely I can afford it as there is nice browsers already and development of another good browsers surely will be fostered by such unfriendly Mozilla move.

do you really think that there is more than 0.000000001 of probability that an user of Ubuntu ( free/open source software ) decide to sue Mozilla because he lost data? do you think that someone would throw any money in this gamble?

we are being a bit paranoic here.. may be the mozilla top guys are getting too much in touch with Apple ( Asa is fanatic of Apple and hates Linux … as many mozilla top guys ), Google , Microsoft or other corporate big fishes, what a pitty

I’m not a lawyer too and don’t know about the legal foundations apart from what I read here: http://spot.livejournal.com/299409.html – but in that case the sensible approach is to just report on the happenings and articles of people with actual legal insight. If we’re not lawyers, let’s refrain from making suggestions that should only come from lawyers.

The risk of losing data with Firefox or any other software is a fact. That’s why it is, at least, in every commercial software EULA. Hiding this from the user doesn’t make it less real.

My understanding is Mozilla, or any other software vendor for that matter, needs to ensure the use of the software implies the EULA was signed.

I would say there is no way to be 100% sure that the user read the EULA. For example people who download the zip version haven’t signed anything for sure, but this doesn’t mean Mozilla shouldn’t try.