There are many reasons why someone providing a service might want to have a EULA—not all of which are evil or conspiratorial. Today, I happened across a blog post noting that, "Mozilla is demanding that FF users view an EULA the first time they start up Firefox in Ubuntu" and wondering if this was something to worry about. This is a fair question, if by it you mean, "Does this particular EULA contain any terms or conditions that are unreasonable or undesirable to me?" If, however, you are objecting to the very existence of an EULA (end-user licence agreement), I think you're being a bit naive. For example, Mark Shuttleworth when so far as to report the very existence of the Mozilla EULA in Firefox 3 as a bug, stating, "... I would not consider an EULA as a best practice." Come on, Mark, seriously? There are many reasons why someone providing a service might want to have a EULA—not all of which are evil or conspiratorial. Ever sign an agreement before renting a car, or a bike, or cross-country skis? If someone offering a service—of any kind—wants to clarify the terms under which they are comfortable offering that service, why is that unreasonable? Now, you might reasonably take issue with specific terms in a EULA, (like Chrome’s EULA claiming ownership of everything posted via the browser, which is ridiculous, and which even Google acknowledges) but taking issue with the very existence of a EULA is naive. | 
Contact
