On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 07:16:39AM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > Richard Fontana sent me an interesting note that I hadn't had time to > follow up 'til now. It concerns whether Fedora should prefer the use of > the term "License Agreement" over "EULA," the latter of which he felt > sounded too much like a proprietary software-ism. And if you think > about it, he's right -- what does "end user" mean when any user can > potentially redistribute? There *IS* no theoretical end to a Fedora > supply chain. > > I've cc'd him here in case he wants to comment further. (disclaimer: IAARHL, TINLA) Thanks Paul. I had meant to raise this here but hadn't had a chance. The change is symbolic, a matter of labeling, so in one sense it doesn't matter, but I think for the reasons you give, it's better not to use "EULA".[1] [1]It's true that Red Hat uses a similar "EULA" for some of its products, and one could raise a similar issue regarding the use of the label in that context, even if the political considerations are not entirely the same. -- Richard E. Fontana Open Source Licensing and Patent Counsel Red Hat, Inc. (919) 754-4847 rfontana@xxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
