On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 07:16:39AM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
Richard Fontana sent me an interesting note that I hadn't had
follow up 'til now. It concerns whether Fedora should prefer the use of
the term "License Agreement" over "EULA," the latter of which he
sounded too much like a proprietary software-ism. And if you think
about it, he's right -- what does "end user" mean when any user can
potentially redistribute? There *IS* no theoretical end to a Fedora
I've cc'd him here in case he wants to comment further.
(disclaimer: IAARHL, TINLA)
Thanks Paul. I had meant to raise this here but hadn't had a chance.
The change is symbolic, a matter of labeling, so in one sense it
doesn't matter, but I think for the reasons you give, it's better not
to use "EULA".
It's true that Red Hat uses a similar "EULA" for some of its
products, and one could raise a similar issue regarding the use of the
label in that context, even if the political considerations are not
entirely the same.
Richard E. Fontana
Open Source Licensing and Patent Counsel
Red Hat, Inc.