FireFox 3 EULA

[Antonio Olivares]

--- On Mon, 9/15/08, Steve Hill <steve at nexusuk.org> wrote:

> From: Steve Hill <steve at nexusuk.org>
> Subject: Re: FireFox 3 EULA
> To: "Community assistance, encouragement, and advice for using Fedora." <fedora-list at redhat.com>
> Date: Monday, September 15, 2008, 5:01 AM
> On Mon, 15 Sep 2008, Joel Rees wrote:
> 
> > Did you read it?
> 
> Yep.
> 
> > Some apps show you a EULA for the GPL when they
> install. And if you can7t 
> > agree to the GPL, you can click disagree and refrain
> from installing.
> 
> The GPL is not an EULA - the end user is not required to
> agree to it in 
> order to use the software.  In fact, requiring the user to
> agree to any 
> licence (GPL or otherwise) before they can use a piece
> GPLed software is 
> itself a breach of the GPL.
> 
> > My memory of the FireFox EULA is that it's
> basically the same thing, but with 
> > the Mozilla license.
> 
> Again, the Mozilla license is not an EULA - the end user is
> not required 
> to agree to it in order to use the software.
> 
> > I don't remember what the name of the 
> > group that claims to define open source is, but they
> also have a bit to say 
> > about such things.
> 
> The FSF define the four freedoms.  The first of those is
> "The freedom to 
> run the program, for any purpose" which clearly an
> EULA would prevent 
> since it places restrictions on exactly what you can do
> with the software.
> 
> > Sure, a dialogue where you have to click a button that
> says you read the 
> > license is a bit of a pain, and is a bit against the
> real concepts of freedom 
> > of thought, but when we have people who would like to
> treat all open source 
> > and free software licenses like the 1-clause BSD
> license, it may not be 
> > unreasonable for the authors to try to get a little
> bit in the face of the 
> > users about the responsibilities of freedom.
> 
> Could you explain what purpose you believe an EULA serves?
> 
> Could you also explain how you believe an EULA can be
> enforcable, given 
> that you can never prove someone agreed (maybe they hacked
> it out of the 
> software so they didn't have to click the "I
> agree" button, or maybe 
> someone else or their cat agreed to it).  This isn't
> some signed bit of 
> paper where you can prove that a specific person signed it
> - it is a 
> button on a bit of software which you are assuming a
> specific person 
> clicked without having any evidence to support it.
> 
> > If the EULA goes beyond the "approved"
> free/open versions of the Mozilla 
> > license, you may have something to worry about.  Do
> you think that's the 
> > case?
> 
> No, the EULA is quite clear that it only applies to the
> official version, 
> which is why IceWeasel isn't covered.
> 
>   - Steve
>     xmpp:steve at nexusuk.org   sip:steve at nexusuk.org  
> http://www.nexusuk.org/
> 
>       Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper,
> Evanescence
> 
> -- 
> fedora-list mailing list
> fedora-list at redhat.com
> To unsubscribe:
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
> Guidelines:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines

Thought this was somewhat related to the thread:

Fedora ain't playin' around w/Firefox 3

http://linux.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/Fedora/2008-06/msg02165.html

Regards,

Antonio 

http://fedoraproject.org/static/firefox/