Fedora ain't playin' around w/Firefox 3.

[Patrick O'Callaghan]

On Wed, 2008-06-18 at 17:16 -0700, Antonio Olivares wrote:
> > 2) Being commercial doesn't mean not being free. RedHat
> > and others make
> > money from free software.
> Red Hat does not charge for the software, they charge for the services
> that they provide.  At least that is what I have been told many many
> times.

Correct.

> So now Firefox is not free anymore :(, is that what you are saying.

>  Opera is Free/but not opensource correct.  So Firefox is opensource
> but not free? 

I'm afraid you've lost me completely. I don't understand how you can
put this interpretation my comment.

First, why are you mixing RH and Mozilla? The web page you mentioned in
your original post has nothing whatsoever to do with RH.

Second, the page says that Mozilla provides FF, that Mozilla is a
company, that FF is for legal purposes a commercial product (even if
they don't charge for it) and as such certain legal stipulations are
announced, mostly to do with Mozilla's lack of liability for third-party
extensions and for its website services (note that these are separate
from the software as such, i.e. what the page calls the Product), but
also mentioning the specific case of US Government use.

Third, this latter part, section 8, seems to limit US Government users'
rights over the Product, but I presume this is in the sense of making
sure they also are bound by the same license as everybody else, which
otherwise they might not be. Someone who is familiar with the various
cited laws should probably comment here.

Fourth, in any case, since I'm not a US Government user, section 8
doesn't affect *my* rights in the slightest. I suspect you are in the
same position.

poc