RSSMozilla in hot water over use of EULA in Canonical Ubuntu Linux
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published September 16, 2008, 4:05 PM
The definition of just how free is "free" is once again the subject of debate, triggered this week by the inclusion of a typical-looking end user license agreement from Mozilla Corp. amid the setup for recent builds of Ubuntu Linux.
At issue, for the most part, is this: Can a private interest claim intellectual property rights to certain trademarked elements of code that are distributed as part of an open source package protected by the General Public License?
That actually wasn't the only issue Ubuntu users had with Mozilla's EULA. Canonical officially categorized the EULA as a program bug last Saturday, describing it as follows: "THIS AGREEMENT IS OBNOXIOUS and largely irrelevant to Ubuntu users. The license refers to installation and closed-source parts which ARE COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT TO UBUNTU USERS. THE LICENSE PAGE ALSO DOES NOT PREVENT ME FROM USING THE BROWSER WITHOUT AGREEING TO IT. It deserves capital punishment DUE TO EXCESSIVE USE OF CAPS."
One of the capitalized portions of the EULA with which Ubuntu users were presented states that users indicate their complete acceptance by clicking on the Accept button. Of course, setup of the entire operating system can't go on as scheduled until the user does this.
In a tidal wave of discussion posts on the issue on Ubuntu's Web site, users raised a myriad of complaints, most of which actually did not concern Mozilla's use of all-caps.
"The Web browser is almost always going to be a user's first impression of Ubuntu," wrote user William Grant on Sunday. "Firefox, the current default Web browser, is also the only application in the default installation to present a EULA on first start. It feels invasive to me, and a little frightening: I'm not used to being required to read legal text in order to use applications included with Ubuntu."
User Curtis Unger argued that it was wrong for Canonical's management to enter into an agreement with Mozilla that enabled the organization to display Firefox's EULA, without discussing the matter with the community at large first. "There is no excuse for the timing and seeming ignorance in allowing this to be the path at which the community now has to address the issue to Mozilla," Unger wrote. "The lack of trust and experience is simply offensive. If we can get Google to change their EULA for Chrome on Windows, surely we can pressure them and Mozilla to drop the EULA in Linux."
The discussion became so dense and so heated over the past few days that some users suggested dividing Firefox from the product altogether, replacing it instead with the GNOME-based browser Epiphany -- which appears to have much of the look and feel of Internet Explorer version 3.
Others proposed an even more drastic approach, though not an unprecedented one: creating their own fork of Firefox that contains derivatives of its source code, but which does not use any of its trademarks and which omits Mozilla's EULA.
It's been done before: Three years ago, developers with the Debian Project distributed a reworked version of Firefox, with an eerily similar, though officially different, set of logos. The first edition was called Iceweasel, which later evolved into IceCat, a Firefox fork distributed with the GNU license. It essentially complied with Mozilla's wishes to be given credit where credit was due, although Mozilla's trademarks wouldn't have to be protected by any EULA simply because those trademarks were stripped from it.
This discussion devolved down some unusual avenues: for instance, since someone actually already has stripped a Firefox version of its trademark and redistributed it under the GNU license as "free," why would Canonical's community or anyone else actually need to do the same thing again? And if the act of stripping the trademark wouldn't have to be done again, then would simply adopting someone else's stripped-trademark version be an effective protest?
In an effort to forestall any chance that the debate could lead to drastic action, Mozilla Foundation chairperson Mitchell Baker issued a mea culpa yesterday. "The most important thing here is to acknowledge that yes, the content of the license agreement is wrong," Baker wrote. "The correct content is clear that the code is governed by FLOSS [free-libre open source software] licenses, not the typical end user license agreement language that is in the current version. We created a license that points to the FLOSS licenses, but we've made a giant error in not getting this to Ubuntu, other distributors, and posted publicly for review. We'll correct this ASAP."
Later that day, Mozilla Corp. vice president and general counsel Harvey Anderson posted a "beta test" of sorts for a revised EULA that may somehow be made visible to Ubuntu installers, but which will not require a click-through button for them to proceed. Omitted from this new language are the explicit trademark redistribution clauses.
As Anderson wrote, "The license grant itself was inconsistent with the values of many of the users in the Linux communities and our own. They viewed the EULA as improperly imposing restrictions on the use of Firefox. Red Hat and Fedora were staunch advocates for making a change, and helped us understand the problem and potential fixes. Upon review, they were right."
Red Hat? Indeed, Fedora architect Tom Callaway not only brought up the Ubuntu issue in a recent blog post, but took credit for helping Mozilla draft the new EULA presented by Anderson. "If Mozilla was smart," Callaway wrote, "they'd back away from the idea of overriding a perfectly valid, functional, accepted and understood license with a EULA. They don't gain very much, and stand to lose a lot more...The EULA that we've helped them draft sucks a lot less than the one they started with."
Perhaps because a EULA still exists, and perhaps because Mozilla gave credit to Red Hat for the prospective solution, the more vocal part of the Ubuntu community has yet to come to a consensus. Just a few hours ago, one user wrote, "No EULA-free Firefox? No Firefox, then, thank you."
As I understand it, an End User License Agreement is designed by a company to ensure that their product 1. remains intact; 2. the company recieves the credit; and 3. that the company reserves to its self all rights and priveldges except what they give to thu user. As I understand it, Ubuntu is a free, Linux based operating system that the user is allowed to change, modify, decompile, and generally try to improve and personalize. These stated, one has to wonder why a company such as Mozilla, which reserves its rights unto its self, would release its product for use in Ubuntu, and still desire to retain her rights to the same. If you donate a program to a free OS package, knowing that it may be decompiled and reassenbled by the user to the users own tastes, then why the EULA? It would be like giving a child a piece of candy, then telling him that he cannot eat it without your permission. It goes against the nature of the thing in question. So hey, if Mozilla desires to retain her rights, then pull it from the realm of freeware; if not, then remove the EULA, and surrender her rights to the same, as far as the Ubuntu release is concerned.
Score: 0
|The article states, "Others proposed an even more drastic approach, though not an unprecedented one: creating their own fork of Firefox that contains derivatives of its source code, but which does not use any of its trademarks and which omits Mozilla's EULA."
Why is the identical code, minus the name and firefox logo, a "drastic" approach? If one used the idential source code of Internet Explorer, and took away the blue E and renamed it Interweb Explorer, would anyone consider that drastic?
If you read the comments the other day on the Ubuntu website, you'd see comments in the comment section, and notice they weren't Cannonical's. (except where Mark S. responded) That's as silly as saying this comment is BetaNews' official position.
As one who has done much to help spread Firefox, I think/hope Mozilla will change it's position by the time Ubuntu 8.1 comes out. If not, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see UbuntFox in future versions, and that should be even less to the liking of Mozilla, I'd think.
Score: 0
|Firefox is still open source and you could this very minute grab every single line of the tri-licensed Firefox source and rebuild it for yourself. That's exactly what Iceweasel does.
As author Scott Fulton references above, where Mozilla seems to be coming from is that Firefox and its artwork are a registered trademark and that they are keen to protect how its name is used, how the browser is packaged, and what its default settings are. The source is open (and GPL'd), but the name isn't. The same could be said of most commercial open source -- the owners are merely protecting their branding.
_____________________________________
[TANGENT]: One thing that Mozilla needs to do is rebrand itself. As of now, we have:
-- Mozilla the project,
-- Mozilla the foundation,
-- Mozilla the corporation,
-- Mozilla messaging,
-- Mozilla the browser suite, and
-- Mozilla the original Netscape project.
Cut the confusion and just rename the browser itself Firefox and be done.
Score: 0
|Mozilla is offering great quality open source software for free. They just want to have some control over the identity elements of the project, which is not at all unreasonable. Seems pretty fair in exchange for the benefits that the community reaps. The community doesn't lose anything from not being able to throw around the trademarks. It's all about the code being available.
Some people just get so ridiculously gungho about having everything "free" that they lose sight of what is important. On the other hand, there is no need for an interactive EULA. As long as the trademarks are documented and accessible on demand, then that's all the protection that Mozilla needs.
Score: 0
|I think Mozilla is simply protecting the "identity" of it's product. It isn't like closed-sourcing code.
Moreover, if others are to create their vanilla version it cannot then be considered the "firefox" of Mozilla. So, vanilla versions need to have their own trademark and identity. It sounds fair.
The community may simply be surprised of a EULA that's posing at their screen. I could attribute that with their problems of Microsoft EULAs. But certainly, the EULA of Mozilla isn't Microsoftish -- people simply recall bad experience.
;-)
Score: 0
|If Firefox needs a EULA, it really is time for Ubuntu to switch to the trademark-stripped Iceweasel or whatever. When I recieve GPL software from someone, I do not have to agree to anything at all to USE it. If I want to distribute it, I have to provide the source code of whatever version I distribute, including my changes if any. But I do not give up any of my rights by using the code. This is the great thing about Linux. If every program in a Linux distribution required clicking through a warning or EULA you could have to click 20,000 times to install Linux.
Score: 0
|"It feels invasive to me, and a little frightening: I'm not used to being required to read legal text in order to use applications included with Ubuntu."
sounds like someone needs to quit whining like a little b!tch, accept the user agreement and keep on browsing.
Score: 0
|Can you all say "tempest in a tea pot?"
Score: 0
|Sounds like somebody needs a vacation.
Score: 0
|The Debian project is all about the Freedom. Take all the source and do anything you want with it, short of removing the Freedom. What Canonical does with it is add some bits that are not Free and make Ubuntu. It makes for a better end user experience but you can't do with Ubuntu what Canonical did with Debian because of those extra, less than Free, bits.
There was much mouth froth over Debian not distributing Firefox. No fault to Mozilla, they can hold trademarks and license their use, not a problem. What they can't do is force Debian to compromise it's founding principles and distribute something that is not free to modify and redistribute.
Mozilla doesn't want to see the Firefox trademark on something that they didn't make. Totally understandable and completely incompatible with Debian, who's position should also be completely understandable.
Score: 0
|"It makes for a better end user experience but you can't do with Ubuntu what Canonical did with Debian because of those extra, less than Free, bits."
1. Ubuntu didn't really do anything to Debian because Ubuntu is just a very different thing I don't admire.
2. So where's the value of using open source when you are again stuck with vendor lock-in?
Score: 0
|You say:
"That actually wasn't the only issue Ubuntu users had with Mozilla's EULA. Canonical officially categorized the EULA as a program bug last Saturday, describing it as follows: "
This is just plain wrong. Canonical did *not* describe is that way. That was written by a Launchpad user, who does not represent Canonical. Canonical does not endorse everything written by everyone on Launchpad. Please get your facts right.
Score: 0
|You say:
"That actually wasn't the only issue Ubuntu users had with Mozilla's EULA. Canonical officially categorized the EULA as a program bug last Saturday, describing it as follows: "
This is just plain wrong. Canonical did *not* describe is that way. That was written by a Launchpad user, who does not represent Canonical. Canonical does not endorse everything written by everyone on Launchpad. Please get your facts right.
Score: 0
|What exactly is everyone moaning about here?
You have to accept a EULA? So ****ing what? One more button click really isn't going to hurt the Linux types that much now, is it.
Score: 0
|I agree, what is their problem?! Because they have just 1 EULA to accept affter installing Ubuntu? Am I not understanding the issue here are these people just plain moronic?
Score: 0
|LOL! Someone actually finally bothered to actually read the EULA!
Its Much ado about nothing...but hey...since when does that stop the opportunity to complain? ;-)
Score: 0
|if the EULA does not bring anything why put it then ?
There is now an EULA because mozilla corp or it's layers wanted to assert more control and in the end restrict user rights beyond the MPL.
Again : if it does not bring anything new why do it ? They can as much REMOVE it. strangely they won't.
PS: and it's not because nobodies read them that they are not legally binding. unfortunately and to much chagrin they are and will be till the whole "specific unfair laws for digital products" act(s) will be in effect or not overruled. And history does not seem to flow that way :(
Score: 0
|Actually read the EULA actually like, much, actually? ;-)
Score: 0
|Mozilla are asserting their rights.
Whose business is it to stop them doing this?
It's their product and they can just as easily stop making it and tell the whinging types to sod off.
If I make a product I want to hold as much power over it as possible.
Score: 0
|Actually, I think you actually got it right, actually... ;-))
Score: 0
|I'm a pretty heavy Linux user, to be honest, I probably would have clicked the EULA and moved on without a hitch. I think peoples issues on this is that this is one step in the wrong direction from what open source is all about. Mozilla, being one of the most popular open source apps, I see the reason for users concerns. The concern is more for "what is next" rather than this particular issue. It's sort of like giving in to a government command, and with every step we get less and less rights as a "free" society. But I do believe people are making this more of a big deal than they need to, it is still obnoxious for one of the open source leaders to pull a publicly idiotic move on the community.
Score: 0
|you may have forgotten the open source part of the equation ..
And this is exactly what "customers"/"Co makers" are telling Mozilla they do not want, the more power thing, and acting about it.
Score: 0
|I've been an Iceweasel user for a couple of years. At first I was concerned about prompt security and bug fixes. It's not a problem since most security problems are handled by no-script and I get plug-in updates automatically and as quickly as Firefox users.
The re-branded browser is just as good as Firefox and nobody has their panties in a bunch over imaginary property.
Score: 0
|OK, the posted the wrong EULA, apologized and they are in the process of correcting it.
But this is Open Source after all, and the heated moot debates can be expected to continue unabated for months or years and to be remembered and regurgitated at will for many years to come.
And one wonders why Linux is no closer to dominating the desktop than they were 15 years ago - despite having copied almost every facet of the Windows desktop- not to mention being available for free!!
LOL! Go figure...
...And as we leave them to fight amongst themselves, a distant plaintive cry of "has anyone seen an app for this thing OTHER than Open Office?" was heard... alas, no replies other than an even fainter "But it makes a killer print server" were forthcoming...
Score: 0
|> "despite having copied almost every facet of the Windows desktop"
go out have some reading who copies from whom and art of anti-competitive practices by M$. IMHO poor windows users, you get something remotely usable on an almost acceptable prise only because of the strong competition.
Score: 0
|