Mozilla EULA

As you probably know the new Mozilla EULA is causing quiet a ruckus in the Ubuntu community. At least from what I know so far.

• https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+s....0/+bug/269656
• http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...ng-debate.html

I'm currently on a ad hoc debate about this issue but I would ike to understand more of what the problem is all about. Honestly I cannot understand why the criticism.

One one hand, Ubuntu doesn't provide a "Social Contract" in any terms similar to Debian's, for which I don't see the problem of the EULA's being displayed on FF first use under Ubuntu. On the other hand, I can see this EULA making it difficult to justify FF presence in the Ubuntu's Main repository and having eventually to move it to Restricted. But there is nothing stopping Ubuntu from using software from this repository as default software.

I'm also a little confused as to why so many feel this issue had to be openly debated? For one I cannot see how a conclusion would ever be reached and Ubuntu culdn't just wait for said decision on behalf of the commmunity, neither could it just wipe out FF and replace it with something else while de debate went along, without this affecting the product.

Finally... given the Mozilla EULA classifying the product as a commercial product, doesn't this in fact force Mozilla to adopt the EULA under USA laws? I'm asking this last one because there's some debate whether Mozilla needed in fact an EULA and this is all just Mozilla nitpicking...

This is an issue that is more or less a change in the dynamics of how this particular open source program conducts its business. However, as you mentioned, the EULA is kind of a legal matter in some countries (like this one, for example).

I think the end net result will just be programs with names like UbunFox or FireUbuntox or some other rediculous derivative of the Firefox name being adapted to the host OS. WinFox... FireFOpenSuse (heh... Ok I admit I am just being an ass at this point).

They'll probably just reuse Debian's IceWeasel.

Anyway ...
http://lockshot.wordpress.com/

Death to firefox!

Yes, and death to any Open Source fascists.

Quote:

---

Anyway ...
http://lockshot.wordpress.com/

---

The drop the EULA in favor of a License Agreement. Fine, but what does that change? The users are still obliged to agree to the license, even if not explicitly on a click-through operation. I don't think the Open Source fascists in Ubuntu were concerned with just that.

Quote:

---

This is an issue that is more or less a change in the dynamics of how this particular open source program conducts its business.

---

I'm guessing just that too. The issue of branding becoming a concern among Open Source projects which become popular and have the potential to provide an inflow of investment from external sources or to simply make money... I just don't think Canonical is particularly worried with Mozilla branding. Its users however seem to have adopted a radical approach to Open Source... confusing it with Free Software.

Quote:

---

I think the end net result will just be programs with names like UbunFox or FireUbuntox or some other rediculous derivative

---

Which is exactly what we didn't need. A bunch of forks, some (like with Debian) ridiculing the very same product they are built from.

EDIT: With friends like these, who needs enemies?

Quote:

---

The drop the EULA in favor of a License Agreement.

---

Huh? A EULA ("End-User License Agreement") is a license agreement. They're not dropping, they're rewording the license.

Quote:

---

The users are still obliged to agree to the license, even if not explicitly on a click-through operation.

---

True, but then, you're also required to agree to the GPL if you use free software. GTK+ on Windows, for example, requires you to explicitly agree to the LGPL when you install it. GIMP requires you to agree to the GPL.
It's just that on Linux, agreement to the GPL and LGPL is assumed, because it's, well, Linux.

I noticed that they changed the wording from End-User License Agreement to License Agreement. The first is the latter. But the latter isn't just the first.

To clarify, what I mean is that the same restrictions are still there and I think that's what they were complaining most about. If it has restrictions to use, it shouldn't be a default installation on Ubuntu, according to their stance.

The conditions of the EULA do not stipulate anything that fundamentally changes the way the user can use the software. I think this is equivilent to posting a sign in your front yard that says "No Solicators" as opposed to just telling sales people who enter your property to leave. Explicit versus implicit. Nothing more.