Could Mozilla people explain how a use restriction in a EULA does not conflict with the GPL v2?
Is it their position that the binary is not being released under the GPL, only the source code version? How could that work? The EULA says if you don't wish to agree to the EULA, you should not install or *use* the software. But the GPL says nothing about use, only distribution. You are free to use GPL software, period. And I don't think, from what I know, that you can attach restrictions on use to GPLv2 software. So, that's the part I'm puzzling over. There may be an explanation that I can't see yet, but I can't see how this isn't violating the part of the GPL that says you can't attach any further restrictions. (GPLv3 has some options that v2 doesn't have. But I read the Mozilla Foundation License Policy page at http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/license-policy.html and what I see is v2, not v3.) Suggestion: Has Mozilla thought to speak to Software Freedom Law Center or FSF about this EULA? They are concerned about their trademark, and that is natural enough, to me, anyway, and there may be a way to address Mozilla's concerns without stepping on the GPL, but so far, I don't think they've found it. Lawyers can usually find ways to do what you want to do, and the community certainly wants Mozilla to avoid legal troubles, but I'm wondering if there isn't a better way than this? Maybe their legal counsel isn't as familiar with the GPL as SFLC, for example, and SFLC could show a less offensive way to go about things. I can't put these two paragraphs from the End User License together: "A source code version of certain Firefox Browser functionality that you may use, modify and distribute is available to you free-of-charge from www.mozilla.org under the Mozilla Public License and other open source software licenses. "The accompanying executable code version of Mozilla Firefox and related documentation (the "Product") is made available to you under the terms of this Mozilla Firefox End-User Software License Agreement (the "Agreement"). By clicking the "Accept" button, or by installing or using the Mozilla Firefox Browser, you are consenting to be bound by the Agreement. If you do not agree to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, do not click the "Accept" button, and do not install or use any part of the Mozilla Firefox Browser." Is the key "certain Firefox Browser functionality"? What is the purpose of making the distinction? If that phrase means that some functionality is proprietary, and some isn't, and only the parts that are not proprietary are available as source, then is Mozilla saying that their finished product is no longer free software, that it's a mix of free and proprietary? Or what is the meaning? If so, I would think that would be something to make clearer. And if the source code version is available to be used, is it available to be used and still be called Firefox? Would it work standalone? If so, could the proprietary bits be separated out and let people choose or not, subject to the EULA? I'm thinking it would smooth the waters quite a bit if Mozilla would explain things a bit better. -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
