Licensing Proposal Notice Page Screen Shot

Below is the sample notice page. The reference to the MPL should link to the document.

Below is the web services language which will open from the notice page above.

26 Responses to Licensing Proposal Notice Page Screen Shot

  1. Pingback: The Open Sourcerer » Wolfie get’s his Glorious Day

  2. Tom says:

    Great stuff! Much nicer!

    Just great!

    Way better than the old allcaps legalese!

    The MPL should be linked, though. That would make it perfect!

  3. jef says:

    Can you explain how this is materially different than the temporary solution that Mozilla granted Fedora in earlier discussions?

    Other than the fact that its now appropriately Firefox branded namespace and graphics instead of distribution-specific. But from a functional view I’m not sure if there is anything new here that was not covered in the temporary Fedora 9 notification solution that Mozilla granted previously.

    It appears to me to be a refinement to the Fedora 9 web services notification solution that Mozilla originally agreed to let Fedora use. But I might have missed something significant. So here’s your chance to point out what I’ve missed. I’ll let you shout at me too if you think its warranted to get me to see the difference…just this once though.

    It’s unfortunate that Mozilla felt that the discussions concerning the adaptation of the temporary notification solution to the EULA problem had to be continued to be conducted in private. We probably could have avoided a lot of heat on this issue and gotten to the current mockups earlier if the discussion could have transitioned into a more transparent process. If Mozilla had taken the initiative to open up the discussion process concerning the adaptation of the temporary notification solution early this summer, before Canonical was that it was forced into a position to produce an EULA-enabled build this whole process could have been accomplished with far less..friction.

    It seems from contextual discussion surrounding this week’s weeks events in response to Canonical choosing to introduce the EULA build into their development branch that both Canonical and Red Hat might have chosen to participate in a more transparent process if Mozilla had agreed to it. Such a process need not have been a fully public process. But a transparent one, where the participants where limited to a small group, but the discussion was archived for community review. Such a discussion could have done a lot to keep this from becoming a public spectacle.

    The larger web services notification discussion is not over. I hope that Mozilla as an organization comes away from this week with an appreciation of the importance of having transparent discussion concerning legal issues from their perspective.

    And I would very much encourage Mozilla to get involved in a larger open discussion with all the stakeholders who are working towards integrating web services into the linux desktop so we can figure out how to handle this in a vendor neutral way that makes sense for a desktop environment which utilizes multiple web services from multiple vendors..across multiple applications..and not just the traditional browser interface.

    -jef

  4. Arno Schuring says:

    Looks very much perfect. Up until section 4, that is. Will that text (sections 4-6) be rewritten to use the same language as the sections above it? They still feel very much like legal boilerplate text, although I can see why you’d be hesitant to reword such sections.

    Section 6 could use some polish though: remove the all-caps, maybe use an ? I don’t consider myself skilled enough to consider the contents, but 6a seems overly wordy, and I’m not sure of the purpose of section 6e. Is it included so that translations of the license still refer to the English version as authoritative?

  5. Does “Edit – Preferences – Security” change depending on the user’s OS? (e.g. “Tools – Options” on Windows, “Firefox – Preferences” on Mac)

    Can we replace “with all faults” with “with any faults” or “and may have faults”, so it doesn’t sound like we’re implying that the services are extremely faulty?

  6. Sebol says:

    This is great. Changing this from an agreement to a grant of freedoms 0, 2, 3 is the right thing to do. This is a much more positive and accurate message. Presentation-wise, integrating the notices into the first-run web page is good.

    (Did the (L)GPL “no additional restrictions” clause conflict with the trademarks, or was it the services, or some external code like breakpad? I’m not familiar with that subject.)

  7. Chip Bennett says:

    I love what you have done here, with both presentation and content; that said, an end-user agreement still exists with respect to the non-free services.

    (From my perspective, I think I’m happy with this arrangement. The end-user agreement is clearly limited to use of the services – and I can either agree, and use them, or else disable them.)

    Regarding the non-free services bundled (compiled?) with Firefox (I am still quite new to FOSS, so please forgive any ignorance):

    Isn’t Firefox itself released under an open-source license (the “tri-license”)? Confusing as the “tri-license” may be, isn’t it still the same, with respect to the prohibition of encumbering the end user with use restrictions?

    If true, doesn’t the inclusion of non-free services in the Firefox build contradict the “tri-license” under which Firefox is released? I don’t know if the right term is “contradict”, “invalidate”, “contaminate”, or whatever – the point is, how are the free and non-free components compatible?

    Wouldn’t it be better to package these non-free services as an add-on for the free Firefox?

    Then, the Windows/Mac builds could have the add-on installed/enabled by default, with the EULA presented upon install – and the Linux builds could have the add-on either not installed, or else installed, but not enabled (and users presented with the EULA when the add-on is enabled).

    Else, could the Linux distros be permitted to build Firefox with the services disabled by default – without facing branding-rights revocation? If the non-free services can’t be pulled out into an add-on, perhaps this solution would satisfy all?

  8. When I run a “Minefield” debug build with the default settings, am I using the safe-browsing service without permission? Is that a problem?

  9. I’d like to suggest a few small tweaks.

    It would be nice to work in some mention of the full tri-license arrangement; something like “… provided you meet the requirements of the MPL. (You also have the option to redistribute under the terms of the GNU GPL 2 or the GNU LGPL 2.1.)” where the word “option” links to an explanation of why the tri-license exists, and the names of the licenses link to their full text.

    The paragraph about not being granted a trademark license should mention that the Foundation does grant permission to use the trademarks to redistributors under some conditions, and link to more discussion of those conditions.

    The web services agreement text needs to be beaten with the comprehensibility stick some more. I *think* the key legal points are (a) the services are provided with no warranty and you promise not to sue the Foundation if they fail to do their job; (b) they are not covered by open source licensing, in particular, you don’t get to modify and redistribute the server or the database. Whether or not I’m right, the text should be reworked so that the key points are *obvious* to someone who has *less* experience reading legalese than me.

    The web services agreement also fails to answer two key questions that users may have. First and most important, what information is sent to the server, and can it be used to identify the user and/or track their browsing habits? Second, under what circumstances may a program which is not allowed to call itself by a Mozilla Foundation trademark make use of the services? (Whether or not that program is derived from Mozilla code.)

    The latter question is going to be much less important to the average end user, but is in some ways more important to assuaging concerns about “bundling of non-free services.” My impression is that the service is non-free in that the code and database are not published (yet?) under a free license, but perhaps not in the sense of being only usable by a limited set of client programs.

  10. Max says:

    Sorry for the ignorance, but I wonder if the new version for licence proposal means that Debian could include Firefox as the default browser? wasn’t the reason to have renamed it to Iceweasel due to licence conflicts? I would like to see Firefox back to Debian, officially.

  11. Chip Bennett says:

    Oh, I forgot one other question I had:

    Why does this end-user notice need to have anything related to re-distribution rights and limitations?

    We end users just want to *use* Firefox; redistribution really is irrelevant, IMO.

    If true, then getting rid of anything regarding rights and limitations with respect to re-distribution would pare the thing down considerably.

  12. Usama Akkad says:

    It’s good improvement. one suggestion make this service disabled by default, with button to enable it and agree to the license.
    Thanks

  13. Sebol says:

    @Max

    Debian’s DFSG state everything Debian ships must be under a free licence, which includes the artwork. Debian would still be able to use the firefox name without the artwork (trademark law allows it since there is no misrepresentation, this is essentially the same software), except Mozilla doesn’t want their trademark used that way.

    Mozilla (under the more permissive community edition policy) requires full branding, a slower patch turnaround that goes through Mozilla approval, and allows minor customisations such as changing search engines and start pages.

    The only way out for using the firefox name is a more inclusive definition of what the firefox mark applies to. This definition doesn’t need to be DFSG-compatible (stating spyware and adware can’t be called “firefox” is entirely possible if you find the right incantation), but it needs to permit what Debian used to be doing with generic artwork and security- and integration-related patches.

    To use the artwork in debian, there would need to be some sort of licence covering the artwork. This is orthogonal to the tradermark issue, as Nathanael Nerode pointed out. A compromise that gives permission to use the artwork to Debian only wouldn’t fly under the DFSG; permission to use the artwork would essentially be given for all derivative works, permission to use the mark would stop if there is misrepresentation. However, I understand that Mozilla finds it more convenient to be able to sue for both trademark infringement and copyright infringement.

    The historical evolution is described on lwn: 2005, 2006, and seems to point to a lack of communication at the time.

  14. Brian Kemp says:

    @Chip Bennett:

    In the Free Software World there is no such thing as an End User, and honestly there shouldn’t be.

    There are users…but there is no *end*.

    You hand a copy of Firefox to a friend–you just redistributed Firefox.

  15. Timothy Mieyal says:

    I would add, most EULA actually make no sense to normal end users, for being legal terms and all. So why not educate or at least put in plain easy simple content what legal terms are used, like a glossary does, so we get smarter people like teaching does for students.

    And every EULA should have a method for FEEDback, like if something if unfair for their situation… as no legal code fits all situations…

    Example DRM… how does it allow fair use…

    And why should anyone need an EULA, after buying the product, service etc…? The terms should be known before not after…

    Example, go to the doctor get patented medicine, that after you take it, you discover, there is a side effect, no more children possible…

    A little late for that, wouldn’t you say?

    Why cannot the legal stuff just be standard for all too? Meaning here, why do corporations get to change the rules for their own interest, and there’s so many different companies making up their own rules, that not one single EULA gets to be read as if and as like another…

    Actually, when people are allowed to share, non of this legal IPR stuff is needed at all.

    Example, you have a garden and cut some flowers to give away for FREE to some beautiful girl…

    but in the U.S.A. these flowers are protected by patent law thanks to IPR, which then makes it a crime to share these flowers, as they are genetic property of DuPont, etc…

    Not the best example, but the main point is, all IPR is a form of censoring the public… a free open society on the other hand support sharing, liberty and freedom to allow everyone to benefit as a whole. This doesn’t mean total chaos here but to share responsible, like supervision, like teaching how and helping to support the same for everyone else.

    Unfortunately, IPR has become a means to financially gain in profits, that deny the public from learning how the stuff works, operates and therefore insures only dependency upon….

    We have become “wasteful consumers” for that… at a time we really shouldn’t be when our labor force isn’t cheap, when we should be creative and innovative for needed solutions now and ahead…

    One good innovation, like a light bulb can boost our economy, but making 300 million Americans minimum wagers, or even slaves, without assets, all in debt, ruins any democratic republic…

    Not to mention, the U.S. shouldn’t outsource our research and development to China… just because their labor is FREE as in cheap under the CCP.

    It will come back and bite us all…

    And what happens when the CCP becomes smarter, more scientific, and it’s cheap labor force advances into high tech replacing all our advantages…

    Shall we all be unemployed to be replaced by others then?

    So, all this happens because of IPR upon the economy…

    All the content distributors frame this as piracy… as if our own culture shouldn’t share with our own citizens our works of innovation…

    The late time I checked, we were suppose to be living in a free open society, not some CCP communist regime like China, right?

    In China, no need for EULA agreements, it;s always what the party wants or else, off with your organs for sale for the highest bidder on Baidu.com

  16. Hagar says:

    Great job Mozilla. That solution is perfect for me. Understandable for everyone.

  17. mhenriday says:

    Great to see that Mozilla is listening to the its many users – let us hope that by doing so it will gain still more ! But I fail to see what all this has to do with China, which as far as I can understand was not at issue in the proposed Mozilla EULA. One of the secrets to fruitful discussions is attempting to remain within hailing distance of the topic….

    Henri

  18. Pingback: Free Culture News » Mozilla drops EULA requirement for Ubuntu

  19. This more or less looks equally good as the version you blogged 23 minutes earlier.

  20. Pingback: Mitchell’s Blog » Blog Archive » Mock-Ups Available for Notices (previously was EULA)

  21. IT Knowledge says:

    Firefox is no more, what will the world do?

  22. lol, it, the world canot live without firefox. its all over.

  23. Supply Chain says:

    Its great to see Mozzila asking following its customers wishes.

  24. mozilla is a lot easier to used than IE, cause it ie has so may toolbar that can slow down the browser.

  25. Pingback: An update on the Firefox EULA issue « I’m Just an Avatar

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 433 other followers