Firefox without EULAs — Update

September 16th, 2008

We’re still working on this. There’s been a bunch of helpful feedback. We appreciate this. We think we’ve integrated the feedback into something that’s a good solution; different from out last version in both its essence and its presentation and content.

We’ve come to understand that anything EULA-like is disturbing, even if the content is FLOSS based. So we’re eliminating that. We still feel that something about the web services integrated into the browser is needed; these services can be turned off and not interrupt the flow of using the browser. We also want to tell
people about the FLOSS license — as a notice, not as as EULA or use restriction. Again, this won’t block the flow or provide the unwelcoming feeling that one comment to my previous post described so eloquently.

We expect to have the materials that show this plan posted tomorrow morning.

Along with the feedback, there have also been some responses that go beyond anger to nasty, personal attacks. This is unfortunate. I think we’ve gotten past the vitriol to absorb the underlying issues. It’s possible that we’ve missed something. Sometimes the vitriol masks what would otherwise be a point we might understand and agree with. If that’s the case, we’ll keep working on things. The end result will be better for all of us.

Categories: Mozilla | Tags: EULA, Firefox, legal

78 comments for “Firefox without EULAs — Update”

1
Chip Bennett said on September 16th, 2008 at 7:45 pm:

I look forward to seeing this new implementation.

I much prefer a solution that does not cause me to have to replace Firefox with unbranded Firefox.
2
mitchell said on September 16th, 2008 at 7:47 pm:

Chip: yes, that’s the goal.
3
Corey Burger said on September 16th, 2008 at 7:51 pm:

Thanks for listening to the real issue and not trying to paper it over with a changed EULA.
4
Vadim P. said on September 16th, 2008 at 7:52 pm:

“this won’t block the flow or provide the unwelcoming feeling “. Thanks, sounds good, that’s all that was worrying me.
5
Simon said on September 16th, 2008 at 8:04 pm:

We’ve come to understand that anything EULA-like is disturbing, even if the content is FLOSS based. So we’re eliminating that.

That’s the most important thing, really. EULAs have a reputation for being evil, and that’s not something people like to see open source projects associated with.

Besides, is there really any point in displaying a EULA on startup? Hardly anybody actually reads them, so all they are is an irritant, a poor way of communicating anything to your users.
6
jackb said on September 16th, 2008 at 8:49 pm:

Please remember: *any* screen/panel/tab whether labeled as EULA or not is still restrictive if it is showing some form of a license.

The inclusion of Web Based Services that are encumbered, in FOSS software, makes the software encumbered.

Placing a first screen, that shows status of all services is helpful and allowing the user to explore options is better, but can become a nag screen (equally bad as EULA), since this is what is done in WindowsUpdate with security options.

Maybe a good comprise is a button in bar that that looks like a jail cell or open door, that opens the services options page allowing the user access to world of options and notices for using the options.

PS: the original EULA came off like MS Internet Setup that each new user had to good through including your need for Passport to use the internet.
7
Bill said on September 16th, 2008 at 11:17 pm:

>We also want to tell people about the FLOSS license

That may make sense for Firefox on Windows, but it is unnecessary and redundant for a Linux distribution. Just imagine if every application felt the need to notify the user that there’s a license associated with the package. Of course there is a license, but don’t require it in a popup window. Don’t require it in a tab. Put it in Help -> About where people normally go to get info like that.
8
The Open Sourcerer said on September 16th, 2008 at 11:54 pm:

“Put it in Help -> About where people normally go to get info like that.”

Perfect Bill. That’s where this kind of stuff should be in FOSS.

I am impressed, yet again, by the way the community can voice it’s opinion and, more to the point (and by the sounds of it), actually get heard.

As others have already suggested Mitchell, I do hope you have dropped the idea of some annoying pop-up, first-use display that requires user acknowledgement/consent (I’d tie this into the specific functions in the config screens and ship with them *disabled*). This is not the way of FOSS and if it still transpires that Firefox requires some user consent then unfortunately that means it can’t be “Free Software”. See Freedom 0: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.

Thanks for keeping us informed Mitchell. I look forward to seeing the proposal in the flesh.
9
Anders said on September 17th, 2008 at 12:19 am:

Thanks for “getting it”. It sounds really good that you will eliminate the EULA-feel. Anything that resembles that symbol of corporate abuse that is the EULA simply does not belong in Free Software.

And it sounds great that you will tell us about the License, but even better would be to tell about the Freedoms that it gives. In plain, simple, beautiful and effective language and layout – something we know you are good at.

http://www.intothefuzz.com/2008/09/16/moving-the-needle/
10
Alan Mackenzie said on September 17th, 2008 at 12:31 am:

I was most disturbed by the “privacy policy”, which I’m supposed to read (how, exactly?) from a web address, and agree to. A “privacy policy” attached to a program???? This is novel indeed. This “privacy policy” was turgid, even patronising, and worst of all was meaningless – of what use is a privacy policy which can, at any time and without notice to anybody, be changed from “we’ll treat your personal data with respect” to “we’ll forward all your personal data to the USA security services”?

Please think about cutting this thing down to its readable essentials, including it in the distribution, and irrevocably committing yourself to not disclosing any personal information.

Thanks!
11
Pingback from The Open Sourcerer » Power to the People! [on Mozilla's Firefox EULA]

[…] users of the Mozilla Firefox web browser. And it seems that the voice of the community is being listened to: We’ve come to understand that anything EULA-like is disturbing, even if the content is FLOSS […]
12
niackho said on September 17th, 2008 at 1:48 am:

*****************************************
No EULA for using Firefox. GREAT. Normal
*****************************************
I agree with you :
Moz needs an EULA when the integrated web services are enabled BY the user and it must be done the right way.

An EULA needed for enabling google’s “spyware” features (that is how I ‘feel’)

This EULA must be available in all languages, and must respect the rights of an user about their personnal informations sent to Google Inc. in comprehensible terms (no obfuscation, please !) wherever this user lives.
This EULA must state the rights of the user are enforceable by local laws, not the US California State laws, must states what will be done with personnal informations.

I discovered there is a difference between Mozilla Privacy Policy and the Google Privacy Policy.
Moz states that the personnal informations of an user are used only for the anti-phishing and anti-malware features “The Mozilla Privacy Policy expressly forbids the collection of this data by Mozilla or its partners for any purpose other than improvement of the Phishing and Malware Protection feature.” . I am OK with that.

But it also states that it sends cookies from google.com to Google.

Google states that third parties must comply with Google Privacy Policy.There is a *big* problem in my opinion.

Google Privacy Policy states “We may COMBINE the information you submit under your account with information from other Google services or third parties in order to provide you with a better experience and to improve the quality of our services” & “We use information about Safe Browsing usage to improve the quality of the Safe Browsing service AND other Google services.”

In FRANCE, I think that is simply ILLEGAL, and it is contrary to the Mozilla own Privacy Policy. The term “Google services” should be described explicitelly.

“Un fichier doit avoir UN OBJECTIF PRECIS”
“Les informations ne peuvent pas être réutilisées de manière incompatible avec la finalité pour laquelle elles ont été collectées
art. 226.21 du code pénal”

Combining my IP, the URL of the site and my cookies from google.com (all of this may be considered personnal informations by french law) with the anti-phishing and anti-malware features can only be used to improve anti-phishing and anti-malware services (the purpose of the features), not the other services from google (advertisement, etc…)
Must I tell that I don’t consider google advertisement service (or something else) not a part of a “Safe Browsing” service ?

If Moz sends personnal informations about me I must rightly know what, where (outside the EU ?),to whom & what for.
That is my rights in FRANCE and I think in all the EU.

Moz can’t transfer my personnal informations to a third party who will use them for something other than the “Safe Browsing” service but Google page states they do the contrary, I think that is ILLEGAL.

I wonder how will Moz & Google lawyers deal with that.

This requires an explanation that I hope we will see in the necessary “EULA for WIS in Fx”, that will allow us, Fx users, to make an enlighted decision.
*****************************************************
13
Fiery Spirited said on September 17th, 2008 at 1:56 am:

I wonder how far FLOSS could come if the supporters of it did not get hung up on stuff like there-must-be-nothing-resembling-an-EULAs…surely it is the contents that really should matter if we ever shall manage to get people to understand FLOSS.

Maybe the way forward is to create a mode when the Firefox browser uses a graphical theme that is stripped of all Mozilla stuff. If the end user does not like to agree to Mozilla’s trademark rights, that from my point of view are there for the benefit of us all, they can compile a version without Mozilla stuff and themselves assemble the necessary graphical elements to make the browser look nice.
14
Tom said on September 17th, 2008 at 3:04 am:

Thank you very much!

And please don’t worry about the attacks too much. I know they can be nasty and that is unfortunate, but it is the internet. Tune your filters 😉
15
The Open Sourcerer said on September 17th, 2008 at 3:13 am:

@Fiery Spirited, please do some homework before making pointless posts… If you compile the Mozilla source without specifying the following switch to the compiler you get exactly what you requested:

ac_add_options –enable-official-branding

It has been like this for as long as I can remember… This is essentially what Debian’s Iceweasel is.
16
Manni said on September 17th, 2008 at 3:57 am:

The “vitriol” surely was not nice. But I still don’t get it that you didn’t see it coming. Don’t let the lawyers take over.
17
Meneer R said on September 17th, 2008 at 4:02 am:

This is good to hear!

@Fiery .. with an EULA firefox adoption rate in corporations would fall down. Opensource does not get the windows privilege of lawyers looking at EULA’s and accepting them. Esspecially considering the amount of software and vendors supply that sofware that together make a linux distrobution. It would be nearly impossible. It might be something we could deal at install time [accept all at once] .. but employers are told very specifically they are not allowed to accept EULA’s or any other legal contract without specific authorisation. You can understand the sort of mess this creates for grassroots adoption. Now, permission has to be granted from the top. Without an EULA no legally bounded agreement is made (the MPL/GPL are about copying/distributing) .. and we could just install .. and not need to get specific legal permission.

But, and I hope Mitchell, will have definate answer to this..

Do you recognize that there is no need for any legal relationship between the [user] and [mozilla]?

Mozilla is not giving firefox to us, you are giving it to [Ubuntu/Fedora] .. they are giving it to us and that makes them the legal party.

So, I do hope, it’s not just a terminology thing. That no EULA .. really means .. no legal agreement between user and mozilla. Since, unless we want to copy the firefox source .. or use your branding, we not need any legal agreement, right?
18
nobody said on September 17th, 2008 at 5:20 am:

Thank you Mitchell. The “take home” for those spouting the vitriol is that Mozilla does listen and it’s no thanks to them that the proposed remedy appears to be a sensible and workable solution for all involved.
19
Fiery Spirited said on September 17th, 2008 at 5:55 am:

@The Open Sourcerer
You seems to have taken my comment in a way that I don’t intended it…my thought was that Mozilla can make an agreement to license requirement affect what version of firefox that is run. The final compiled version links dynamically to the right code, depending on the users choice. To my knowledge that does not happen today even while I have been to lazy to check.

When I used the word compile I did thus not mean it in the build from source but rather assembling a theme. Afterall you could edit the source code to not include the EULA demand and release the modification using GPL, right?

@Meneer R
If no legal agreement should take place between Mozilla and the end user I think you are pretty much saying Mozilla must make their brand stuff free. Not that this would necessarily be a bad idea, but from my point of view it seems you either have something that is free or something that needs a license. Using some sort of creative commons set up can possibly work around the problem.
20
Meneer R said on September 17th, 2008 at 5:56 am:

@nobody

I’m suprised that there are some that do not understand the anger of the community. I have no doubt those that were the most upset, were also amoung the biggest promotors of Firefox. So, we there is feeling of betrayel.

Anyone with any corporate experience could tell you that deploying opensource software is easy (can be done bottom-up grassroots style), whereas EULA restricted software is hard (needs top-down permission from the legal guys).

So, what we have is very corporate move, that is legally unsound and kills corporate adoption. So, it sort of feels like kids pretending to be adults. It seems obvious this is move not initiated by the lawyers or anyone with any corporate experience. So, where is this coming from?

This is a totally new and unique situation in the opensource ecosystem. The ramifications of this move by Mozilla itself being legal (it might actually fall under racketeering and thereby be illegal!) are huge. It means I can make a GPL product .. make it extremely popular, with everybody using my trademark for that GPL product. And then .. simply start charging money from people that want to use my trademark. I know mozilla isn’t doing this; but they opened the door….. to exactly this model. Don’t charge for the product, charge for the name of the product.

So, the anger is not because of the EULA, it is because of the feeling that Mozilla is turning into another company is exploiting loopholes in law to kill the three freedoms of free software. The most recent loophole (closed in GPL3) was software patents.

I strongly doubt, that _how_ Mozilla is achieving complience of the distributions: threatening to take away the right to use their trademark, unless Ubuntu/Fedora forces their users into a legal agreement with Mozilla .. i strongly doubt that’s legal. But obviously, it’s morally objectable and definately goes against the spirits of free software.

At the very least, it’s such a new trick, that until it is actually tested in court, nobody can and should be sure, that Mozilla even had the legal standing to boss the distrobutions around like that.

In realizing this: the door is open. The best thing to happen is Mozilla to stuck with its guns, and for Ubuntu to just have Mozilla take them to court for their trademark violation.

The best thing for the whole market now, is a judge saying ‘this is racketeering’ or at the very least ‘fraud’. Because the loophole is exposed….

Trademarks can be used to take control over opensource software and force users into either legal and perhaps financial agreements.
21
sohbet said on September 17th, 2008 at 6:01 am:

Thanks a lot very good Yes Thats is a good idea
22
sohbet said on September 17th, 2008 at 6:01 am:

We’ve come to understand that anything EULA-like is disturbing, even if the content is FLOSS based. So we’re eliminating that.

That’s the most important thing, really. EULAs have a reputation for being evil, and that’s not something people like to see open source projects associated with.

Besides, is there really any point in displaying a EULA on startup? Hardly anybody actually reads them, so all they are is an irritant, a poor way of communicating anything to your users.
23
Meneer R said on September 17th, 2008 at 6:05 am:

@Fiery

Actually, by default, trademarks are protected.
Also, by default, you are not allowed to distribute anything commercially, unless you get explicit permission from the authors.

So, the firefox logo and such are protected simply by not providing an opensource liscence for them.

Does the google logo on the http://google.com need an EULA to make clear that that logo is copyrighted by Google? No, it doesn’t.

The one “(c) Google” on the page is enough. And all of the firefox is (c) Mozilla. We just have the ability to ‘opt-in’ to an opensource liscence that would give us the right to copy [under certain conditions].

But unless we distribute, there is no need for any legal agreement between the user and mozilla. And when the user wants to distribute, the user can only acquire that right by getting an opensource liscence. No need to throw it in his face or make him ‘agree’ to it.

Really, all Firefox needs is a (c) Mozilla in the help->about.

This is a marketing move. [a bad one].. but it is not legally needed. Ubuntu protects its brand without an EULA. Novell does it without an EULA. Sun does it without an EULA (now it’s opensource). These are all organisations with a lot of money .. that hire lawyers .. and none of them see any use in this..

And if the EULA is required .. we need ONE standarized EULA, that millions of opensource projects can reuse. So we accept those conditions at once. Perhaps, like the CC.. or something .. but not a unique EULA per project.
24
Vadim P. said on September 17th, 2008 at 6:06 am:

@Meneer R: I wondered about this too, and like you said, it’s just like kids become adults. But in this case it’s more like the adult-copying that kids do.
25
The Open Sourcerer said on September 17th, 2008 at 6:21 am:

@Fiery Spirited, I apologise if I “grabbed the wrong end of the stick” as we say. I’m not sure I totally understand your point but from what I understand your idea could greatly increase the size of the binary that needs to be shipped.

I am very hopeful that Mitchell’s words above will translate into a happy conclusion to this sorry episode. It has caused considerable damage to Mozilla’s good reputation. If they provide a very successful resolution it may, ultimately, work in their favour of course…

I await their detailed proposals with great interest.
26
Pingback from Boycott Novell » Links 17/09/2008: Android is Near, Google Rumoured to be Buying Valve

[…] Firefox without EULAs — Update […]
27
Celtic_hackr said on September 17th, 2008 at 7:58 am:

It’s good to see that Mozilla has realized their mistake and is willing to admit it and fix it. This speaks volume to their integrity. Even if the mistake they made *should* have been obvious; I know I’ve done some really dumb things in my past. I am further saddened though, by how many people responding still don’t seem to grasp the complexity of copyright, trademarks and FOSS. It is not a simple thing and it is therefore understandable how a smart bunch of people could still get it wrong.

I am so glad you, as a company, are going to do what it takes to protect your trademarks and seek a workable solution for the community. This will be a valuable lesson for others who are looking for solutions similar to yours.

Sorry to hear about the vitriolic attacks you experienced. It’s about par for the course on the internet, and could have been predicted.

I look forward to seeing a good solution, perhaps one that even Debian can accept. I really hate the name Iceweasel, and thought it was very disrespectful of them to use that name.
28
Pingback from Firefox e l’EULA: Mozilla non fara più la preziosa. Forse. « pollycoke :)

[…] Note all’articolo:cfr “Firefox without EULAs — Update” via Groklaw che ha un articolo interessantissimo se vi piace il legalese [↩]Penoso […]
29
Pingback from derwinzig.at » Von Firefox, Iceweasel und Abrowser…

[…] Wie Frau Mitchell berichtet, hat man bei Mozilla nun eingesehen, dass soetwas nervt und daher – dankenswerterweise – […]
30
ScottK said on September 17th, 2008 at 8:48 am:

I find “We’ve come to understand that anything EULA-like is disturbing,” a pretty stunning confession about Mozilla’s distance from the FOSS community. How could that be a suprise?
31
Pingback from Mozilla to remove Firefox EULA

[…] Ubuntu users who couldn’t stand the idea of a EULA (End User License Agreement) for the popular Firefox Web browser are going to get their way. The Mozilla Foundation’s chairperson, Mitchell Baker, has agreed to entirely remove the Firefox EULA. […]
32
ushimitsudoki said on September 17th, 2008 at 9:57 am:

I really want to find the good in this, so I sincerely hope this works out. I’m cautiously optimistic right now.

Two statement have been raised in other comments, I echo them here because I think they are illustrative:

1. “We also want to tell people about the FLOSS license — as a notice, not as as EULA or use restriction.”

2. “We’ve come to understand that anything EULA-like is disturbing, even if the content is FLOSS based.”

These statements have an air of hubris and isolation from the larger community.
33
Tom said on September 17th, 2008 at 10:22 am:

I am very gratefull. Thanks again.

That said .. I have to agree with ScottK. EULAs are obviously disturbing. You have to be blind / or living in a very proprietary world to not see that.

Maybe you guys should use FOSS operating systems from time to time ( as the only operating system/full time ) instead of MacOSX + VMs.

Just a thought XD
34
Pingback from Firefox sans CLUF « Stemp

[…] Firefox without EULAs — Update [En] We’ve come to understand that anything EULA-like is disturbing, even if the content is FLOSS based. So we’re eliminating that. […]
35
mitchell said on September 17th, 2008 at 11:12 am:

ushimitsudoki: the people we want to tell about the FLOSS licenses are not the current Linux or open source/free software communities. They are the other people who use Firefox — the general consumers. We hope more of those folks will use Linux, and Firefox on Linux rather than other platforms. Most of these folks don’t know much if anything about FLOSS. Many have heard of it but don’t know what it means.
36
Chip Bennett said on September 17th, 2008 at 11:33 am:

Mitchell:

If your goal is to educate Windows/Mac users about FOSS (and that Firefox is free software), wouldn’t a more effective approach be to:

1) Separate the encumbered code (safe browsing, etc.) into an add-on,

2) Eliminate the EULA from *all* binaries (it’s free software; therefore its use requires no legal agreement between Mozilla and the end user, since Mozilla cannot encumber the end user with use restrictions on software that is licensed as FOSS), and (most importantly)

3) Present Windows/Mac users not with an EULA, but with a notice: “This is free software! Mozilla cannot and does not impose restrictions on the use of this software.” And then present links to the licenses under which this software is released.

This notice could be on the FF start page and in About:Help – or, if you’re trying to make a point with Windows/Mac users, present it as an at-install pop-up (or click-through, or whatever).

As you have indicated, none of this “education” is required for those already in the Linux/FOSS community.
37
Tom said on September 17th, 2008 at 11:53 am:

I agree with Chip. You should use the new NON-EULA to educate people and tell them how great FOSS/FLOSS is!

BTW ..

http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/legal/eula/firefox-en.html

has/had way too many caps 😉 Yelling is not nice!

It is really great that all this commotion will help you change it.

Sometimes from a internet flame a new Phoenix(=>Firebird=>Firefox) arises B)

Really really great stuff. Mozilla is the best!
38
Pingback from Mozilla removerá la EULA de Firefox « Ubunlog

[…] Mitchell Baker presidente de Mozilla Foundation se ha comprometido, según lo dice en su blog, ha eliminar totalmente la EULA de Firefox Todavía estamos trabajando en ello. Hay un montón de […]
39
Pingback from Rob Sayre’s Mozilla Blog » Blog Archive » Mozilla is Linux

[…] think there’s been great progress on the Firefox first run experience. One thing that disturbed me about the initial […]
40
Usama Akkad said on September 17th, 2008 at 3:58 pm:

what about
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080917045510597
It made me afraid.
[..]The Open Source Initiative’s definition of “Open Source” includes this clause, explained in the annotated version:

7. Distribution of License

The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties. [..]
41
Pingback from Mozilla eliminará el EULA de Firefox « Tuxbelito

[…] Baker, de la misma Fundación Mozilla, confirmó que “Hemos entendido que cualquier cosa parecida a una EULA es molesto, aún si el contenido […]
42
JMB said on September 17th, 2008 at 8:02 pm:

Mitchell: As a longtime Firefox supporter and user (since the Phoenix/Firebird days) and even as a Mozilla Suite user off and on before that, I’ve seen Mozilla do some pretty dumb and/or questionable things. This is certainly one of those big “WTF?” moments, and I just felt I should reply to give my thanks for thinking this through and coming to a better conclusion.

As an Ubuntu user, and a Linux user for a couple years now, the last thing I need to learn about is the license–and I’m sure that applies to just about anyone out there who had enough courage to stand up and decide for themselves to switch to a non-Microsoft platform. Most likely, the license *is* what switched a lot of former Windows and Mac users to Linux in the first place.

Anyway, my idea is… Firefox comes with a “first-run” page both upon install (or first run in most Linux distros) and after an upgrade. Why not use this page to place a (very) brief message informing users of the license and trademark information, and point them to “Help -> About.” From there, they can click “License” or something similar, which would of course pop up a window displaying trademark and license information.

This would mean no annoying pop-ups upon first run; instead the user could read through a short welcome page telling them brief legal info, and seek out the full details on their own time, allowing them to surf right away. Also, this wouldn’t just be on first install. It would be during every boot of a live CD, every fresh install, every time you delete your profile and start fresh, etc… basically, it would be a nightmare.

Hopefully Mozilla doesn’t make any more major blunders; I had fears of Mozilla losing touch with the community as soon as I heard of the spin-off Mozilla Corp., and unfortunately I’ve seen a couple cases (this being one) showing that that may very well be the case. I’ll be watching out… I don’t exactly like being swindled by large greedy companies. There are many alternatives out there to jump ship these days, and there are plenty of people I can persuade too. After all… most people I know use Firefox… as my own recommendation to them.

Keep it up… and please don’t lose sight again.
43
Usama Akkad said on September 17th, 2008 at 8:08 pm:

Please make the web service disabled by default.
Thanks
44
Eric said on September 17th, 2008 at 8:12 pm:

Help -> About seems like a good idea to me. I have seen this tastefully done in many Free Software / Open Source projects. Would something like this bode well with Debian getting Firefox back into there repos? A fox by any other name, just isn’t the same 😉
45
choc said on September 17th, 2008 at 8:26 pm:

Yes. Also, it is breath-taking that Firefox even acknowledges this and is actively DOING something about it; as opposed to attempting to win-us-over with the mentioning of new apps, or trying to change our minds in some other way.

This is what I call tiered support; fricking awesome!

Viva-La-Firefox!!!

Thanks FF
46
Carl said on September 17th, 2008 at 8:57 pm:

Thank you for listening to your users. It means heaps to us.
47
Eivind said on September 18th, 2008 at 1:47 am:

It’s simple really, aslong as you can:

* Avoid language that contradicts the MPL

* NOT require me to take any explicit action

* NOT interfere with what I actually want to do (browse the web, not read legalese)

You’re ok. You may still be STUPID though — as in when you insist you MUST put in-my-face information that would be true regardless. It’s not as if your Trademark would magically evaporate if you stopped INSISTING that you MUST tell me about it…
48
Jonas said on September 18th, 2008 at 5:30 am:

This has been an issue since the trademark guidelines were published in the first place. The EULA problem just put a very fat finger on it.

Solve the problem with Debian and everyone will follow. Until then it will still be a problem.
49
Pingback from Mozilla eliminará el EULA de Firefox « GNU/Linux, una forma de vida

[…] Baker, de la misma Fundación Mozilla, confirmó que “Hemos entendido que cualquier cosa parecida a una EULA es molesto, aún si el contenido […]
50
Pingback from Linux Los Angeles » Mozilla eliminará el EULA de Firefox

[…] Baker, de la misma Fundación Mozilla, confirmó que “Hemos entendido que cualquier cosa parecida a una EULA es molesto, aún si el contenido […]