From: Steve Hill <steve(a)nexusuk.org>
Subject: Re: FireFox 3 EULA
To: "Community assistance, encouragement, and advice for using Fedora."
<fedora-list(a)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@nexusuk.org sip:steve@nexusuk.org
http://www.nexusuk.org/
Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper,
Evanescence
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list(a)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