SillyDog701

[James]

Firefox to have EULA?
I just read the following on the Mozilla forum and could hardly believe my eyes. I'm quoting it and giving the link. Any thoughts?
--------------------------------------------------------------

In a move approaching sheer insanity, the driving forces behind the widely touted Mozilla Firefox browser have every intention of requiring users to accept an End-User License Agreement (EULA) in order to be allowed to use the software -- just like the restrictive Microsoft EULAs so despised in open source circles.

Strangely, all involved in the project seem prepared to roll over and let it happen. If really true, this casts serious question on the Firefox project's motivations, on the recent "Spread Firefox" campaign, and the famous $250,000 NY Times ad.

One of the only two Google hits on the relevant Bugzilla item number reveals "Yes, Ben and I discussed these changes, and I agreed to them. They were requested by the publicity coordinators."
-----------------------------------------------------------------

See post http://www.dslreports.com/forum/rem...e=flat#11768748
in thread http://www.dslreports.com/forum/rem...53387~mode=flat
__________________
James

UserAgent: Opera/7.60 (Windows NT 5.1; U; en)

[Gregor]

James, links aren`t ok ( Post does not exist / Access denied).

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; sl-SI; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20041101 Firefox/1.0RC2

[James]

hmmm... okay... try this:

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark, ... t#11768748

and this:

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark, ... ~mode=flat

UserAgent: Opera/7.60 (Windows NT 5.1; U; en)

[Gregor]

In a move approaching sheer insanity, the driving forces behind the widely touted Mozilla Firefox browser have every intention of requiring users to accept an End-User License Agreement (EULA) in order to be allowed to use the software -- just like the restrictive Microsoft EULAs so despised in open source circles.James

IMHO there is no need for EULA. If this intention passes, it will probably have serious consequences on further development of Firefox. This intention stinks and in nearby future Firefox project can be abandoned ....

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; sl-SI; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20041101 Firefox/1.0RC2

[James]

Having read through the thread on that other forum, I must admit to having some reservations. It makes you wonder as to whether there is, in fact, a hidden agenda. The advertising in the NY Times is also rather odd, given the fact that advertising for a browser would be much more effective online (i.e. with Google) than in a newspaper.

UserAgent: Opera/7.60 (Windows NT 5.1; U; en)

[Don_HH2K]

Hmm, an EULA for Firefox... I don't see anything wrong with the MPL and NPL, besides the fact that they go a bit overboard with legal phrasing, but which ones don't? An EULA for Firefox might, simply put, be a non-legally phrased version of MPL/NPL, that I don't know. As for what good it would do, that's beyond me. If I'm not mistaken, I was reading a few weeks ago that 91 percent of end users click directly through license agreements without reading them. The point is beyond me, but chances are Mozilla wouldn't do something unnecessary to Firefox (minus functionality and stability improvements, of course) unless it was needed for one reason or another.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax)