none of us are in a position to be experts about the legal constraints which Mozilla feels apply to them."
What does that mean?
Come on talkbackers. You've shown you know every reason for a EULA in other cases. Fill in Mr. Shuttleworth.
Shuttleworth defends Firefox license in Ubuntu
Summary
Canonical's CEO Mark Shuttleworth has explained the presence of a Firefox 3.0 end-user license agreement in Intrepid Ibex, following developer complaints.
Topics
Mark Shuttleworth, whose company, Canonical, funds the Ubuntu operating system, has stepped in to try to resolve a dispute on Ubuntu developer's forum Launchpad.
The dispute revolves around a Firefox 3.0 end-user license agreement (EULA) that has been incorporated into the Intrepid Ibex version of Ubuntu (read ZDNet's Adrian Kingsley-Hughes. The Firefox 3.0 EULA was noted as a bug on Launchpad on Saturday by William Grant, an Ubuntu developer. Shuttleworth has claimed that the EULA's inclusion had been requested for trademarking purposes by Mozilla, the organization behind the Firefox browser.
"Starting up a certain 3.0.2 version of Firefox browser makes available to you a very capital[ized] end-user license agreement," wrote Grant. "This agreement is obnoxious and largely irrelevant to Ubuntu users."
Another Ubuntu developer, known as 'Nullack', wrote that, if the EULA did not limit the user, there was no need to show it. However, "if the license of Firefox is different and requires special consideration, then that alarms me", wrote the developer.
"One of the chief attributes of Ubuntu is the license it comes with, and I don't want to have to analyze how this affects me as a user, with Firefox potentially changing the license," wrote Nullack.
Mark Shuttleworth, Canonical's chief executive, wrote back to say that Mozilla Corporation had requested the EULA be included for trademark reasons.
"Mozilla Corporation asked that this be added in order for us to continue to call the browser 'Firefox'," wrote Shuttleworth.
"Since Firefox is their trademark, which we intend to respect, we have the choice of working with Mozilla to meet their requirements or switching to an unbranded browser."
Shuttleworth wrote that he recognized the importance of brand to a product, but he said a EULA was not "best practice" in his opinion.
"I would not consider a EULA as a best practice," wrote Shuttleworth. "It's unfortunate that Mozilla feels this is absolutely necessary, but they do, and none of us are in a position to be experts about the legal constraints which Mozilla feels apply to them."
Shuttleworth criticized those members of the Ubuntu developer community who feared that a EULA would take away their digital rights.
"Your software freedoms are built on legal grounds, as are Mozilla's rights in the Firefox trademark," wrote Shuttleworth. "To act as though your rights are being infringed misses the point of free software by a mile."
Shuttleworth added that a package called "abrowser" was being developed in Intrepid Ibex which uses Firefox's code base without the Firefox trademark.
Mozilla Corporation had not responded to a request for comment at the time of writing.
Talkback Most Recent of 7 Talkback(s)
-
xuniL_z15th Sep 2008 -
This doesn't seem to me to be a traditional EULA
It seems the issue here is the trademark belonging to Mozilla that Mozilla wants protected, not the use of the source code, which is adequately licensed (and the user is adequately informed of their rights).
While I technically do not find this notification legally necessary, since trademark laws adequately address Mozilla's concerns, I don't object to their insistence of informing their users to what extent they would allow those users to use such trademarks.
The truth of the matter is that all Mozilla whats is to make sure anything derived from their source code does not have the Mozilla trademarks unless they give express permission. And since eliminating those trademarks is as simple as a compile-time switch, it's not as if they are bringing any undo hardship on anybody who wishes to use the source code. And if giving your agreement to not break the law is to much of a hardship (remember, you're not giving away any rights you did not have before), one could always use Kubuntu where the default browser is Konqueror.
Michael Kelly15th Sep 2008 -
RE: Shuttleworth defends Firefox license in Ubuntu
The EULA is intended at developers - they have to have Mozilla's permission to modify the code. So,
a) Why stick an EULA into the face of users? It does not concern them, and
b) Developers are already asking, "How do I know which program can I patch?". Obviously, not many will bother asking Mozilla's permission.
Vadim P.16th Sep 2008 -
RE: Shuttleworth defends Firefox license in Ubuntu
Incorrect - anyone is allowed to modify Mozilla's code, with or without Mozilla's permission. That is handled in their code licensing under the MPL, and is the basis by which Firefox and other Mozilla products can be labeled as "free software" and "open source," in the common usage of that phrase.
The issues addressed by the EULA are nothing to do with the code, only with the branding, trademarks, etc which are included in the binary distributed versions, which are equally applicable to the developer and the user. Developers are allowed to patch any program, including removing the branding, from the Mozilla foundation, so long as they start from the source and follow the rules of the MPL that they are licensed under.
Shmeg16th Sep 2008 -
RE: Shuttleworth defends Firefox license in Ubuntu
Wwhat is trademarked are the names: Mozilla, Firefox (and any other names that Mozilla uses in their products) and the icons and visual identifiers associated with each of the names. The code itself is 100% free and unencumbered.
Debian solves the issue with Iceweasel instead of Firefox, Icedove instead of Thunderbird, and Iceape instead of Seamonkey. The GNU project did a similar thing, but put a GNU something or other in each of their names.
If I were Ubuntu, I would either respect Mozilla's wishes and acknowledge the Firefox license, or simply use the Debian Iceweasel, which, other than new names and logos, is functionally equivalent, but could occasionally differ in the security and bug fixes and precisely how and when they are applied. For all intents and purposes, though, the code is usually the same except for trademark related issues.
masinick@...16th Sep 2008 -
I think you have nothing better to do!
Oh what a storm in a teacup, the majority of us, I would bet, have no problem with this, only the few individuals who think they are "very important" do. Go do some real work, please.Oh God save us from the Linux "elite".
judgesinel@...16th Sep 2008 -
RE: Shuttleworth defends Firefox license in Ubuntu
The potential for encroaching software licenses is the motive behind pure freeware distributions; I would note here that the gNewSense distribution is based on Ubuntu, but with all problematic items removed.
It is available at http://www.gnewsense.org/static/homepage/
for users of Fedora, the equivalent free distribution is blag, available at http://www.blagblagblag.org/
We should encourage and support these efforts, to preserve the freeware ecosystem.
LamontC17th Sep 2008
Talkback - Tell Us What You Think
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
Facebook Activity
