Firefox EULA was "giant error" -- Says Mozilla

[ubuntu-freak]

I need to stop finding things out the day after. (http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10044054-92.html)

(I've been very, very busy).

[t0p]

I need to stop finding things out the day after. (http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10044054-92.html)

(I've been very, very busy).

I didn't know about this either. And I'll dare say lots of people didn't know. Not even those who've signed the EULA - because, let's face it, hardly anyone reads those things.

Maybe we should start to read stuff we're signing, eh?

[ubuntu-freak]

Yeah, strangely, no one had created a thread about the u-turn yet. Someone mentioned it in a thread that's now closed.

[t0p]

This is just like the fuss to do with Google's dodgy Chrome EULA - the one that declared Google owned all Chrome users' intellectual property. Maybe Google and Mozilla were both using the same inept lawyer to draft EULAs.

[SomeGuyDude]

Or maybe they both just had standard EULA's drafted and neither company is some evil monolith that plans on exploiting every loophole contained therein.

[Taxman415a]

Well Mozilla in this case had lots of evidence to support that this wasn't going to be taken well, but they tried forcing it through anyway. Look at the negotiations Fedora had with them previously and Canonical had before bug 269656 was filed. That's the worrying part. They knew it wasn't going to be taken well and it took a massive outcry to get them to see the light.

To their credit they do seem to be coming around, and with any luck we'll end up at a better position than if this mess hadn't occured, but it shouldn't have needed to. Mozilla should have respected the freedom that is what helped make them so popular. It shouldn't take closed, sensitive negotiations and public outcry to get that.

[Sealbhach]

One would be led to think the EULA is an afterthought in the release cycle.

.

[northern lights]

Yeah, strangely, no one had created a thread about the u-turn yet. Someone mentioned it in a thread that's now closed.A previous "u-turn" thread had already been merged with http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=919630...

[GepettoBR]

Well, I for one can't wait to see how this turns out. I bet the Mozilla people are pretty damn scared with all the ruckus over the EULA. I mean, you'd never get that from Windows users, now, would you?

On second thought maybe you would. I'm sqealing with glee over the whole Spore DRM issue. It's about time someone woke up the masses.

[smoker]

i'm glad mozilla have seen the light!


I'm sqealing with glee over the whole Spore DRM issue. It's about time someone woke up the masses.

why do companies continue down this road, the drm was cracked almost immediately!
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/10/spore_drm_amazon_effect/

it does nothing but infuriate most legitimate users, and nothing to hinder the pirates:)

[Dr Small]

I need to stop finding things out the day after. (http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10044054-92.html)

(I've been very, very busy).
Old news. I have already read it on slashdot :)

[GepettoBR]

i'm glad mozilla have seen the light!



why do companies continue down this road, the drm was cracked almost immediately!
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/10/spore_drm_amazon_effect/

it does nothing but infuriate most legitimate users, and nothing to hinder the pirates:)

"Almost immediately" indeed. The cracked, drm-less version was available on several trackers a week before the official launch! Something is seriously wrong with EA when they think that releasing a product that is inferior to the pirated version and allowing it to leak will do anything to stop pirating. I know of two people who bought the game, got pissed at the DRM slugging down their computers, and downloaded the cracked version to play instead.

[Dr. C]

"Almost immediately" indeed. The cracked, drm-less version was available on several trackers a week before the official launch! Something is seriously wrong with EA when they think that releasing a product that is inferior to the pirated version and allowing it to leak will do anything to stop pirating. I know of two people who bought the game, got pissed at the DRM slugging down their computers, and downloaded the cracked version to play instead.

The SPORE DRM issue begs another question. Are people pirating this game as a form of civil disobedience against draconian DRM? Otherwise how can a game stay at the top of the pirate charts for all categories on TPB? This is very very unusual for a game.

Mozilla did the right thing recognizing that a EULA and FLOSS just don't mix very well, and kudos to the Ubuntu community for helping bring this change around.

[sloggerkhan]

Old news. I have already read it on slashdot :)

Is there any point to making posts to let people know that you read something on slashdot?

[Jordanwb]

let's face it, hardly anyone reads those things

I heard that in the licence for iTunes it says that you can't use it for making nuclear weapons, or something stupid like that.


i'm glad mozilla have seen the light!

why do companies continue down this road, the drm was cracked almost immediately!
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/10/spore_drm_amazon_effect/

Epic fail for EA. I heard that there was a crack for Vista's activation 24 hours after it was released. Can't confirm it though.


it does nothing but infuriate most legitimate users, and nothing to hinder the pirates:)

Agreed.

[frankob]

well, Firefox still has a proprietary logo and name, and that doesn't really fit in the Ubuntu philosophy, as I understand it.

To be honest, I am very happy with IceCat myself. It's almost the same browser, with minor changes and a different logo and name, free, of course. And doesn't have stupid color issues that Firefox usually has... I mean, try to use a black gtk theme and then write something in the address bar in FF... No problem with that in IceCat! The colors here are the same as GTK. :-)

[Ms_Angel_D]

well, Firefox still has a proprietary logo and name, and that doesn't really fit in the Ubuntu philosophy, as I understand it.

To be honest, I am very happy with IceCat myself. It's almost the same browser, with minor changes and a different logo and name, free, of course. And doesn't have stupid color issues that Firefox usually has... I mean, try to use a black gtk theme and then write something in the address bar in FF... No problem with that in IceCat! The colors here are the same as GTK. :-)

Actually I've not had a problem with theming and FF3 they seem to work quite well together.

[oedipuss]

well, Firefox still has a proprietary logo and name, and that doesn't really fit in the Ubuntu philosophy, as I understand it.


Isn't the Ubuntu logo and name trademarked too ?
The issue isn't mozilla's trademarks, or the content of the EULA, but the fact that there is such an EULA in the first place. The end user shouldn't have to agree to anything in order to simply use the software, I believe. Trademarks are already protected adequately, and shouldn't be a concern of the end user.

I've seen it compared to GPL too, on the assumption that we already agree to GPL's terms, why would we mind a license from mozilla. That's inaccurate as well :


You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program. [...] However, nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate or modify any covered work. These actions infringe copyright if you do not accept this License.

If you don't intend to distribute the program (in other words, if you're an end user), you're not even required to agree to the GPL's terms.