[Fedora-legal-list] Re: EULA -> License Agreement

[Richard Fontana]

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 at redhat.com