[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TOYOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ONSTARTUP

[Chip Bennett]

On Monday 22 September 2008 4:12:23 am Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
> The question about what sorts of terms of service would be incompatible
> with the spirit of free software is a very interesting one, and I know
> there's lots of good debate and discussion going on within our community
> and within Canonical. Theres nothing like a consensus on the matter
> (don't confuse the AGPL for terms of service for services).
>
> At this stage, my own compass suggests that we are OK if:
>
>  - the terms appear to be basically reasonable
>  - the terms don't prevent you from working with anyone else
>  - the terms don't prevent you from studying the service itself
>
> For "basically reasonable" I ask myself "will most *aware* people want
> this on"? By "aware" I mean people who are sensitive to issues of
> licensing and data protection and their rights. Most people are
> oblivious to those things, but the group of people cc'd on this bug are
> probably "aware". And I'm pretty sure that the substantial majority of
> folks cc'd on the bug have left the anti-phishing service active. I
> certainly have. I would think it nuts to surf the web without it.
>
> The middle one is, I think, important because we don't want to see
> lock-in. One could go further and look for data portability and
> protection, but I don't yet see any consensus about that.
>
> And the last one is important people it's analogous to one of the
> fundamental benefits of the four freedoms, the ability to learn from the
> software one is using. I think it likely someone tries to wedge a
> service in somewhere that says "you can't study this" (the way BitKeeper
> did) and I think that would be non-free.
>
> I'm sure, as the discussion evolves, we'll get a better framework, and
> I'm not speaking for the whole CC here, just myself. There are serious
> members of the community who are extremely aware of these issues who
> have been part of the process in driving to a resolution, and as far as
> I'm aware we are all comfortable with this latest round of proposals.
> There is still some detailed due-diligence under way on the specific
> language used and compatibility with each of the licenses in play, and
> if problems turn up there, we'll work with Mozilla to get them
> addressed. Our interest here is in getting to a positive outcome, which
> for me means helping Mozilla as well as helping our users.

Actually, based on the most recent wording of the "terms" as posted by 
Alexander, my specific concerns have essentially been allayed.

In reading those terms, I don't see anything that constitutes an "agreement" 
with Mozilla in order to use the services. Also, the *requirement* to disable 
(i.e. "must disable") the services if the user does not agree with the terms 
has been replaced with non-compulsory language (i.e. "may disable").

In this light, I see the terms of use of the services now in a state that is 
functionally and essentially equivalent to the terms for use of Firefox 
itself. Use of the services imposes no further, improper, or otherwise undue 
restrictions on the user.

> There is no doubt in my mind that the right thing to do is leave the
> anti-phishing service on, and leave Firefox in main. I don't believe we
> are abusing the trust our users place in us, and in fact, most of the
> other courses of actions would feel like abandoning that trust in favour
> of making an unnecessary statement.

And due to the most recent changes, I must say that I agree. I see no reason 
for the services not to be enabled by default - with respect to matters of 
software freedom. (I still contend that the matter of the *usefulness* of 
those services is not germane to the issues at hand and under discussion in 
this bug report.)

-- 
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 Mozilla
Bugs, which is subscribed to firefox-3.0 in ubuntu.