Loading Profile...
EULA
Songbird claims to be a free media player, but yet it forces an EULA to it's users. Why isn't the EULA simply removed, so that songbird can claim to be a truly open media player?
I’m sad
5
people have this problem
I have this problem, too!
Tell me when someone solves it.
The more people who report this problem, the more it gets noticed.
The more people who report this problem, the more it gets noticed.
The best solution from the company
-
Hi Bruno,
While Songbird is 100% open source and GPL'd, there are a few add-ons that we ship that are closed-source and thus covered under a proprietary license.. the QuickTime, Windows Media, and the MTP add-ons all link against proprietary SDKs (the Apple Quicktime and Windows Media SDK's respectively). In order to support playing DRM'd content, and to support transferring DRM'd content to MTP devices - we need to link against the official (i.e. Apple & Microsoft) SDK's, and these impose restrictions requiring us to keep the add-ons under a proprietary license. As such, we can give them out free to all end-users, but they have a proprietary license.
Additionally, much like Firefox, while the application is free and open source, the trademarks (e.g. "Pioneers of the Inevitable, Inc.", "Songbird", and the application icon) are not free-to-use, so we have to mention that in the EULA as well.
It's entirely possible for someone to take the Songbird source and build a completely "free" as in libré/free-speech by forcing it to skip download of the first-run add-ons mentioned above, and to remove all use of Songbird/POTI trademarks by changing the name, icon, etc. (much like Debian did with Firefox=>IceWeasel).
I hope that answers your question?
cheers,
steve
I’m wishing we didn't have to protect our legal butts
The company says
this solves the problem
-
Inappropriate?Hi Bruno,
While Songbird is 100% open source and GPL'd, there are a few add-ons that we ship that are closed-source and thus covered under a proprietary license.. the QuickTime, Windows Media, and the MTP add-ons all link against proprietary SDKs (the Apple Quicktime and Windows Media SDK's respectively). In order to support playing DRM'd content, and to support transferring DRM'd content to MTP devices - we need to link against the official (i.e. Apple & Microsoft) SDK's, and these impose restrictions requiring us to keep the add-ons under a proprietary license. As such, we can give them out free to all end-users, but they have a proprietary license.
Additionally, much like Firefox, while the application is free and open source, the trademarks (e.g. "Pioneers of the Inevitable, Inc.", "Songbird", and the application icon) are not free-to-use, so we have to mention that in the EULA as well.
It's entirely possible for someone to take the Songbird source and build a completely "free" as in libré/free-speech by forcing it to skip download of the first-run add-ons mentioned above, and to remove all use of Songbird/POTI trademarks by changing the name, icon, etc. (much like Debian did with Firefox=>IceWeasel).
I hope that answers your question?
cheers,
steve
I’m wishing we didn't have to protect our legal butts
The company says
this solves the problem
-
Inappropriate?So, why not ship those blobs as extra addons the user had to install if he or she wished? That would make songbird free software and not just somewhat free software.
And make that statement much simpler, like the way Mozilla replaced the EULA. If the blobs became extra addons, that would make things simpler.
I understand you need legal protection. Unfortunately, we live in a world where dictatorware/proprietary software is considered normal. But couldn't Songbird make the changes I suggested, so everyone, including the project, could benefit? -
Inappropriate?They are optional (the user can opt not to select to install them when they first-run), but because there isn't a mechanism for an extension to display a license at extension-install-time (and because the vast majority of users do install them) we display them at first-run.
I haven't had the time to investigate Mozilla's solution for getting rid of the EULA (I assume you're talking about the "Know your rights" <hat> behaviour)... I assume if it worked for them, it would work for us (at least with respect to the trademark issues... there is still the issue of add-on licenses as mentioned).
If you'd like to file a bug for it, I'll look into it when I have time... but if it will require platform changes to display add-on licenses, it probably won't happen anytime soon sorry :( (we've got a *ton* of stuff to do, and don't have the resources to do it all)
</hat>1 Comment Add a comment
This solves the problem
-
huh. dunno why GetSatisfaction added that </hat> ... but ignore that :) -
Inappropriate?Where can I fill a bug report? I've lloked into Songbird website, but I didn't found a bugzilla.
-
Inappropriate?Now that you hate me :) I want to argue this point too stevel.
It is understandable that you have to trademark the Songbird name (cool name btw) and respect the copyrights of the SDK's as governed by law and the contracts involved. That does not, however, require you to attempt to claim copyright over every add-on written as is currently stated under section three (Proprietary) of the Songbird 1.2.0 build 1146 license. It also does not require you to make a point that you are only lending out the rights to use the software and ownership of the individual copies is retained. Write in about the closed-source SDK's/Addons and leave the rest open. Either make it open or not but ease up on the tricky legalese.
I’m frustrated
EMPLOYEE
