iEntry 10th Anniversary
LinuxHaxor
WH
MHFirefox Removes its License Agreement From Ubuntu
Mozilla received a lot of criticism from OS community for bundling EULA with Firefox builds. Even though they decided to remove EULA, earlier Ubuntu Ibex alpha builds still had the old EULA on.
The last update has removed this much talked about EULA and in to something perhaps more acceptable to the OS community:
Loading ...
I like the new way so much more than the old. I did think it was very odd to have an EULA on a Linux box. =P
- Anthony
It’s too bad you can’t remove the GPL EULA from Linux!
Windows has no such problems with GPL’s clearly (terminal) cancer-like terms and clauses…
While you can run IIS/ASP.NET on your own servers without having to provide the source code to each person visiting your site, the terms of the GPL are too ambiguous on this point. You have to provide the PHP code to anyone that asks!
I just don’t feel good about that. Why should all my work be in the public domain? I have to eat just like everyone else.
Very amusing, “Dill Nates”. Your parody humour is so subtle
it goes undetected by most readers…
Nice touch…
@Dill Nates
What are you talking about? First off, Apache is licensed under the Apache License, NOT the GPL. There is no such clause that states you need to distribute the Apache source to your viewers. The only case where this might be true under ANY mainstream license is if you’re redistributing apache itself, and I highly doubt you’d be hosting copies of Apache for your viewers to download.
PHP is the same way. It’s licensed under the PHP license, NOT the GPL. Your PHP code is your own, and held under no such clause or restriction, and the only case in which you’d need to distribute ANY source code is if you were offering PHP itself, or a component of PHP’s source code for download.
Neither of these licenses will affect the 99% of PHP/Apache users
I’m not going to waste time citing the license to prove my point, instead simply find me a site that is adhering to your ludicrous terms. If you can even find one, I can easily find millions that don’t (and haven’t been with not even a thread of legal recourse). PHP is widely used, it’s even penetrated the corporate world. As someone who runs production Linux servers with Apache, PHP, and Python, I can quite confidently tell you we don’t host any of our code, or any code at all for that matter on our site. If someone emailed us asking for the sources of any of our PHP code, we’d get a good laugh. You can’t even download any of the GPL’d programs that run under the hood. Our users probably don’t even know (or care) that we run Linux.
I am more than aware of the multiple licensing schemas and versions used by Linux organizations: the PHP license, the Apache license, the GPL v1/2/3, and etc…
They are all derived from the GPL.
I have read the GPL and have studied it to a great extent. I can tell you that the terms are very ambiguous and restrictive. They hide the facts from you.
It is my opinion that…
1. You have to provide the source code on request to any Linux-based technologies used *if* that technology is public facing.
2. You have to provide and “open-source” any patches/modifications made to those technologies, regardless if that technology is used only internally or is public facing.
3. You have to provide the raw source code and database data for all public facing websites running on those technologies.
I have studied law and I know what I’m talking about.
You may have studied something, but you certainly didn’t pay attention. You only have to provide the source code if you re-distribute the modified product. Internal use is not affected, whether public-facing or not. Try reading again.
You are not forced to use open source softwares. Then code your site from ground up no one will forcefully get your software.
Do you have a GED in law Nate?
@DillNates:
The GPL is not a EULA! It is not an agreement, nor a contract, it’s just a license. (EULA stands for end-user license agreement)
See this article for reasons why the GPL is not an agreement or a contract, and the reasons why you never have to click “agree” anywhere in order to use and distribute GPL’d software.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031214210634851
Dill Nates, do you know that you run Apache, PHP, etc on your website. And what does that mean, according your, for the content? (you studied law ;-) )
Also look at what FUD means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt
Website of Dill Nates:
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 17:04:10 GMT
Server: Apache
X-Powered-By: PHP/4.3.9
X-Pingback: http://www.promotinglinux.com/xmlrpc.php
Vary: User-Agent,Accept-Encoding
Content-Encoding: gzip
Keep-Alive: timeout=3, max=30
Connection: Keep-Alive
Transfer-Encoding: chunked
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
200 OK
All that means is that there is a proxy, load balancer, or cache node, broadcasting the Apache header. You cannot infer anything from the above. I do not use nor support the use of the GPL. I work with licensing terms and I can tell you that if you use the Linux EULA you will be sorry!
“The GPL is not a EULA! It is not an agreement, nor a contract, it’s just a license. (EULA stands for end-user license agreement).”
That’s like saying an apple is not an orange. But they are both fruit!
So you’re happy to tell people they’ll be sorry, but not happy to provide anything resembling the reasoning for such a claim? Cut the FUD dude - we’re not falling for it. Oddly enough, some people have actually bothered to READ the GPL in its entirety, and know what it says.
Love your parody site dude.
Omg… I didn’t laugh so much for a long time. Thank you, Dill Nates!
Thank you for your support.
I have carefully reviewed your concerns, and have created an informative page explaining your rights and the GPL EULA.
I feel that a person should get a balanced overview and make a personal decision if Linux technologies and the GPL are right for them.
And always remember, an OS is a *tool* and not a way of life.
This is old news!
Dill Nates, please put the text of GPL somewhere at your site to people could understand the humor of your articles :)
I thought this was kinda enlightening. What’s the big fuss though?
Props to mozilla, now that is a better way to do it.
Seems like I’ll keep using FFox.
next to go is the firefox version of the google start page. prob will be replaced with a version that ubuntu makes money on.
From The American Heritage Dictionary, 2nd College Edn: contract - An agreement between two or more parties, esp. one that is written and enforceable by law.
From Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edn: contract - An agreement between two or more persons which creates an obligation to do or not to do a particular thing. Its essentials are competetent parties, subject matter, a legal consideration, mutuality of agreement, and mutuality of obligation.
Black’s continues for another 2+ pages detailing various kinds of contracts.
Regardless of whether talking about GPL, EULA, or other device used by the owner or creator of a product, idea, or whatever to limit, restrict, or control anyone else’s access to or use of such product, etc., they and you are entering into an agreement, i.e. contract, whereby rights to use are controlled.
Let’s suppose you discover or create something, say a “whatchamacallit.” It can be useful to other people. If you want to “protect” your rights to it, you can:
(1) hide it,
(2) patent it,
(3) copyright it,
(4) trademark it,
or ….
Since you are the owner, it is your choice on how, and to what degree, you allow others to use or benefit from your invention, and you have every right to have such limits enforced. And, if the person(s) to whom you granted those rights disobey, you can literally kick their ass.
The same holds true whether it’s written, a handshake, or electronic ok on the internet. If you agree to terms of usage, you are allowed to use the product.
And if you don’t agree (eg. don’t check the box on the EULA), you don’t have the right to do anything.
Several years ago (the mid ’90’s I recall) there was a lot of complaining about the newly enacted law (I’ve forgotten the exact name) which formally provided for EULA and its enforcement. John C. Dvorak, in an editorial in PC Magazine or PC World Magazine, stated the bitching over whether it was legal or not, was no longer an argument, as Congress passed the law and that matter was dead.
I hope this sheds some light on whether anyone is entering into an agreement or contract.