Ruarí's thoughts

Does that means anything for the Mandriva distribution which Opera has a contract to be included in the PowerPack edition?
Now can we expect to see Opera included or in the repositories of the Free / One edition(s)?

@Rafael Luik: as far as I know Mandriva's policy, and I know it well enough, Opera can not enter the FREE edition of Mandriva since it's not open-source, BUT now it has a chance to be present on the ONE CDs. However this is up to Opera & Mandriva to agree on.

I think I will take your question to the Mandriva MUGs forum for further clarification.

PS: http://forum.mandriva.com/viewtopic.php?p=798544#798544

What are the highlights? What have changed?

Originally posted by ruario:

I thought I already covered this

I didn't think so -- you said it should make it easier for distros, but didn't say how / why.

I don't want to read it because I don't want to evaluate the whole thing so much as see what changed in the actual wording. Can you cover this by showing us the before-and-after of the section(s) that changed? (or, if that's the case, tell us that it's a complete rewrite...)

PS yes I could go read 2.ii & 1.4, but would also have to scrape up an older copy to compare to, and carefully go over it to see which few words (presumably) have changed vs. the rest that are the same.

To perhaps clarify, do you prefer to see a code review with 2 lines of change or one where only 2 lines worth of change were done, but the bozo also reformatted the whole file to his preferred indentation & brace style so the diffs are giant?

It is certainly better than before. Though I think it could be clearer on the matter of package containers. From a first read-through, I did not see reference to packaging beyond a simple mention that the license must be included with redistributions. AH!

3.1 (d,e,h) could be slightly clarified in reference to 2(ii)

The last line of 4.2 is a little menacing. I assume this is related to fraud protection, but the current wording could be misinterpreted.

Originally posted by patkoscsaba:

I would like to see it in Mandriva ONE as the default browser.

You're dreaming too far with this, you should have asked for simply including Opera as an alternative to Firefox or asked for making Opera available in Free and One repositories (or maybe asked for a ballot screen - seriously).

Unfortunately my account doesn't let me to answer the topic in the Mandriva forum, I never posted there...
But if I was you I'd reply asking them why does them include Firefox in the first place, when KDE includes the Konqueror web browser / file manager already.

They might say it's because Firefox can offer Gecko, add-ons, etc. so you could say that Opera can offer Presto, Turbo, Unite, etc.

Originally posted by rafaelluik:

You're dreaming too far with this

I know, but I like to dream ... and I love both Opera and Mandriva, what could be better than both of them in the same place?

Originally posted by ruario:

The only way I could say how / why is by repeating it verbatim since it is a total rewrite.

(my emphasis) -- you didn't say that earlier. That's what I was looking for, now I can read it without the nagging feeling that I need to be looking at a marked-up diff...

Doesn't Vector include Opera as default? And it's an option in PC-BSD last time I checked. I mostly am hoping for a new macpup opera, built around 10.5x Stable.

Ok, I have a couple comments on http://snapshot.opera.com/unix/snapshot-6330/LICENSE[/url]:

1.3 "Services" means the various services to which Opera provides users with access, including ... -- Opera-the-software further "provides access" to the entire WWW and various related services, not owned by Opera-the-company. This heading could be maliciously read (by detractors; by an opposing lawyer; by your own lawyer at some future time when Opera has gone over to the dark side [don't scoff, I used to work for SCO back before they turned...]) to mean that Opera is claiming rights to those other services. I'm not sure how to improve this. Something like "the various services owned or operated by, or operated on behalf of Opera, to which Opera provides users with access ..." might work?

1.4 “Software” means the proprietary Opera software products (in object code format only) -- this seems to explicitly exclude that Opera makes these claims towards the various non-object-code portions of your products: HTML, JS, CSS, XSL, and various other blobbits of code in the product. I doubt that's the intended thrust of this?

1.5 “Third Party Software” means... -- and this was explicitly excluded in 1.4. Should this say something about how customer must pay attention to the 3rd party's license terms (i.e. this exclusion does not mean we get free access to do whatever we want with included 3rd party sw)? -- ah, I see that's below, section 3.2. Maybe this should at least point to that.

2. LICENSE.... -- problems here: there are two sets of nested small roman numeric points. Point 2.ii.i(parenthetical) should be a separate point. So: "license: (i) to use...; (ii) to distribute... provided: (a) in an application repository for a desktop open source OS; (b) NOT for an embedded OS ["open source" and "desktop" not needed here, putting them in implies some sort of whacky loophole]; (c) free of charge; (d) includes this agreement". -- in (d) do you want to enforce that it must display the EULA once at 1st execution, like your original distribution does?

3. LICENSE RESTRICTIONS AND THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE. -- 1.5 above just defined "Third Party Software" as stuff that Opera ships bundled with Opera's own software. Now 3.* seems to be talking about other 3rd party SW. Actually, 3.* seems to be talking about 3rd parties (actors), not 3rd party SW.

3.1 Customer shall not... (c) adapt, alter, publicly display, publicly perform, translate, -- these exclusions, if read literally, mean that we cannot show our friends how great Opera is; create skins, UserJS, etc.; create our own language translations files. This legal boilerplate is counter to much of Opera's goodness.

3.1 Customer shall not... (c) ... embed into any other product -- therefore cannot ship on the media of an otherwise acceptable (open source, desktop, not-embedded) OS, right?

3.1 Customer shall not... (d) ... distribute the Software... to any third party -- therefore this EULA still prevents distros from providing Opera. They could choose, very much at their own risk, to read 2.ii.[a-d] as superseding this, but I don't know why they would.

3.1 Customer shall not... (e) ... transfer the Software ... to any third party -- another section that seems to prevent distros from providing Opera.

3.1 Customer shall not... (h) allow third parties to access or use the Software ... -- still another section that should worry distros who might consider providing Opera.

This also seems to disallow a service (doesn't exist today as far as I know) which would allow you to submit your HTML/JS/CSS/etc. works to be rendered by various browsers -- a way for lazy web developers to get a quick look at results in a dozen obscure (to them) browsers besides the IE5 they're actually working in.

4. USE OF SERVICES -- much of what is said about Opera's own services may also apply to WWW at large, only even more so. That is: should there be a clause somewhere (maybe its own major heading) that says in suitable legalese, "Opera-the-browser gives you access to the WWW, which contains content generated by people all over the world and is not the responsibility of Opera-the-company". Perhaps not with these exact words, but something that lays down the idea that the software, a browser, acts as a "common carrier" and has no responsibility for content. -- section 4.2 sort of obliquely covers this.

4.3 ... http://my.opera.com/community/terms-of-service/ ... is incorporated ... by reference -- is that legal anywhere? This EULA that users must "sign" (accept) before use, includes something they can't see at the time they accept it, and which may unilaterally change in the future?

4.5.1 Opera Turbo ... We reserve the right to change, limit usage of, charge for continued usage of (of course require you to opt in before incurring any charges), and/or discontinue the Opera Turbo service at any point in time. -- the parenthetical is clumsy. Delete it, add a separate sentence such as: "We will not initiate usage charges without your express consent."

4.5.2 Opera Unite ... -- this section uses "the Services" several times to refer specifically to Unite, contrary to the definition in 1.3.

4.5.2 -- one sentence has the user agree not to do anything illegal, immoral or fattening; then the next sentence says Opera has the right to terminate for copyright violations. Why not include copyright specifically (as an example of 3rd party IP) in the 1st sentence? Then the 2nd sentence says you reserve the right to terminate for any of those reasons. Otherwise you've boxed yourself in as only being able to terminate for copyright violations!

6. PRIVACY. ... www.opera.com/privacy [is] incorporated ... by this reference -- again, is this legal?

7. TERM AND TERMINATION ... will commence upon your download of the Software -- not even deferred until the user has seen and "accepted" the EULA??

7 ... Sections 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 shall survive such termination -- section 4 has a bunch of stuff defending Opera (disputes related to content etc.), is it really intended that section 4 evaporates?

8, 9 -- shouting at me, ignored.

12 ... any ... transfer in violation of this Section 11 will be null and void -- bitrot

If I were the operator of a distro, unless I had a lot of money & high powered lawyers (Ubuntu...), this would still scare me off.

I think there should be a separate top-level point something like: "13. It is our intent to allow distribution of Opera software by open source desktop (non-embedded) operating system distributors. Distro maintainers who are concerned about clauses of this agreement should contact <email addr> for any necessary clarification."

Please don't post e-mail addresses, including fake ones. We don't need more spam bouncing off our servers.

Good point, sorry.

Bela, there is such a service. It is called "Browsershots" if I recall. This link lists a number of options: http://alternativeto.net/desktop/browsershots/ I am guessing that some of these parties have agreements, while others inevitably do not.

The Opera for (D)OSS license should grant certain individual user rights: 1) The right to install and configure the software (for free) on personal computers owned by other people. 2) The right to transport the software for purpose of installation.

The Opera for (D)OSS license should impose certain individual user limits: 1) The individual may not advertise installation or configuration of the software as a commercial service. The individual is not a representative of Opera, and may not provide services for which Opera may be held liable. 2) The individual may not impose a fee for the transportation of the software.

The Opera for (D)OSS license should grant certain organizational user rights: 1) The right to assign personnel to install, configure and maintain the software in-house, with respect to Opera's non-liability in such cases. 2) The right to transport the software internally, by reason of software access policies and network administration. 3) (not so sure here) The right to alter plaintext settings files of the in-house version, with regard to network configuration and internal security. 4) The right to use third-party management tools to remotely maintain user configurations, with Opera held blameless if issues should arise from the use of said tools. 5) The right to configure the skin and interface of the software, with respect to the limitations proposed below.

The Opera for (D)OSS license should impose certain organizational user limits: 1) The organization may not set internal fees for the right to use the software. 2) The organization may not change the software's default settings as part of a revenue-generating agreement. (For example, creating "Search Bar" referrals that would generate revenue for the organization.) 3) The organization may not change the branding, icons or names included in the software, nor may the organization deploy a third-party translation of the software's interface. 4) The organization MUST make a copy of the license available to EVERY member of the organization who uses the software.

Cool! browsershots.org is the one you pivoted alternatives off of. It seems to work. It includes several versions of Opera, which would seem to violate this version of the EULA... not that Opera should object, but repair/clarify the EULA...

The Opera for (D)OSS license should grant certain distribution rights to the maintainers of (D)OSS platforms, media and repositories: 1) The right to include the software in a (free) desktop environment. 2) The right to include the software on physical installation media, and in online software repositories. 3) The right to repackage the software to match the distribution's master packaging scheme. (.deb, .rpm, .tar.gz, etc) The maintainers assume liability for issues related to packaging and installation. 4) The right to alter base configuration documents, or to run a script after installation, for the purpose of ensuring proper access to the WWW (and to Opera's services e.g. Link, Turbo, Unite, etc) The maintainers assume liability for bad network settings. 5) The right to configure the skin and interface of the software, and to change the program icons, only to match the desktop interface standards for the distribution. The maintainers assume liability for issues related to any non-standard skins or settings, and must adhere to any and all limitations proposed below. 6) The right to list Opera as a component of the desktop environment, or to list Opera as an extra option for the desktop environment. 7) The right to provide help to end-users pertaining to configuration and operation of the software.

The Opera for (D)OSS license should impose certain distribution requirements to the maintainers of (D)OSS platforms, media and repositories: 1) The maintainers MAY NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE change the NAME or BRANDING of the software (with sole exception of the program icon), nor lay any claim to the software as exclusive property of the distribution or its maintainers. This extends to any default OR custom icons, skins, packages, config files, or scripts. 2) The maintainers must include a copy of the FULL ORIGINAL LICENSE in any distribution, repository, media and/or package containing the software. The full license must be displayed either when the software is installed, or when the software is first used. 3) If the provided version has been modified in any way, the maintainers must include a separate document in the same location as the full license. This document need not list every modification, but it must contain the text "THIS VERSION OF THE OPERA BROWSER HAS BEEN MODIFIED. DO NOT CONTACT OPERA IF THERE ARE PROBLEMS WITH THE BROWSER. CONTACT THE DISTRIBUTION COORDINATORS OR THE PACKAGE MAINTAINERS FOR HELP." (A translation may be included directly below this text.) This document must also list AT LEAST two different ways to communicate with the party that modified the software. Email addresses, web-based feedback forms, IRC channels and internet forums are acceptable; newsgroups are acceptable if hosted on an openly available server. 4) The maintainers MAY NOT separate the software into multiple packages, and MAY NOT separate the license from the software when repackaging. Reproducing the license on the maintainers' web site, newsgroup or other documentation is NOT an acceptable remedy for this requirement. 5) The maintainers may ADD search accelerators or Speed Dial entries to the software, but MAY NOT alter or remove the default search accelerators or delete included bookmarks.

The Opera for (D)OSS license should impose certain distribution limits to the maintainers of (D)OSS platforms, media and repositories: 1) The maintainers MAY NOT set a fee for access to the software, nor set a fee for access to future releases of the software. If the maintainers provide updates by subscription, the software must be made available in a non-subscription repository. 2) The maintainers may not hold Opera liable for any failure or defect in the software. 3) The maintainers further assume permanent liability for any damage caused by installation or update of the software. (Opera can not spare the resources to guarantee satisfactory operation on all platforms; please test the package yourself before releasing it.) 4) The maintainers may not place an "unstable" version of the software into a "stable" distribution branch. The maintainers may temporarily place a new "stable" version of the software into an "unstable" distribution branch for testing purposes. Repackaged or modified versions of the software should be tested in the "unstable" branch first, irrespective of the implied quality of the software thusly altered. 5) The maintainers may not authorize any other party to re-distribute or further alter the software, nor (explicitly or by insinuation) permit any breach of the license. (Sub-distributions are permitted to share packages, but must adhere to the same license agreement) 6) The maintainers may not advertise modified or repackaged versions of the software for general distribution. 7) The maintainers may not claim superiority of their packages over the original version of the software, nor make direct comparisons between their version and Opera's version. 8) The maintainers must agree to privately disclose any possible flaws in the software directly to Opera first.

Really good stuff there, I hope Opera are able to pick up some of the spirit of it if not the wording...

Originally posted by hellspork:

distribution rights to the maintainers ... 4) ... ensuring proper access to the WWW (and to Opera's services e.g. Link, Turbo, Unite, etc) The maintainers assume liability for bad network settings.

-- this should explicitly mention adapting it to the system's method of configuring a proxy. Not as an additional right to be granted, but as an example of items covered -- and because it's a good idea.

distribution limits to the maintainers ... 8) ... privately disclose any possible flaws in the software directly to Opera first.

-- that seems too draconian. If it said "possible security flaws" I would agree. What's really wanted is "possible embarrassing flaws", but I'm not sure that can be translated into legalese As written, this would prevent the distro maintainer from asking about a potential bug in a forum (even Opera's own, since a post is likely to be seen by others before Opera); discussing it internally on a closed bug tracking system; etc. Also, the meaning of "first" is only clear if you've been following the "responsible disclosure" wars...

Anonymouser writes: Congrats to Bela for the hard work he has put in. I liked Opera when I was using XP and wouldnt mind seeing it in my fave Linux distro provided it cleans up its language. I am not a free software enthusiast and even coder but I dont mind mind using proprietary apps like Skype if there is no FLOSS alternative. That said, EULA's are worthless in my country as was demonstrated in court so it is of little worry to me but there are many points that Bela brought up that have to be looked at. ive been spoiled by free software these past few years because while its first and foremost preoccupation is USER rights (something companies care little about), it has made my life as a recently graduating student a lot easier so you have to understand that Im very weary of locking myself in to someones else's sandbox. still, the effort Opera seems to be making is to be respected and applauded. I might not recommend non-free software to my family and friends but I think that non-free software like Opera and Skype have to find a way to be accesible through repos. its a long journey but it seems like you people GET IT and Im very enthused at what ive read so far. all the best, Nikolaos Kotsoukos

Anonymouser writes: Typo should read: I am NOW a free software enthusiast and coder .

Thanks for hosting http://snapshot.opera.com/unix/snapshot-6330/LICENSE as application/octet-stream, that way I can't even read the license with Opera, I need to save it.

SCNR. An old grudge of mine. (I.e. I cannot choose to "Open with Opera" if Opera believes it shouldn't. Happens with incorrectly declared text/plain UTF-8 files as well, I think.)

What...? Works fine here. Or is this one of those lingering filetype bugs in Linux? I'll have to try it later.

Originally posted by patkoscsaba:

Patkos Csaba # 3. May 2010, 22:14

Originally posted by rafaelluik:

You're dreaming too far with this

I know, but I like to dream ... and I love both Opera and Mandriva, what could be better than both of them in the same place?

Quota

hy it will be possible to port opera for mandriva in non free repository along with all other closed stuff 8 you should talk with anne Nicolas, since she is the maintainer of opera) but do you really think that mdv will renounce at opera in restricted ?I don't think so.... No problem i'll wait till comes out the first stable version of opera then I'll do a porting ( at least for x86_64 and the src.rpm ) and will be available to everybody on MRB or/and MIB That's a promise PS: if the opera license wont change ,of course.

Dan writes: C'moon, release this under a /real/ OSI/GNU approved license! No one will include it otherwise. Especially not Debian.

Originally posted by anonymous:

C'moon, release this under a /real/ OSI/GNU approved license! No one will include it otherwise. Especially not Debian.

Debian includes Opera already; that's what the non-free category is for.

Surely there cannot be an ``OSI/GNU approved license'' for an item of proprietary software with non-disclosed source code!

Much as some of us might enjoy it if Opera went open source, it is their decision and they'll come to it under their own power if they decide it's a good plan.

If you are ideologically opposed to non-free software then don't use Opera. You're welcome to encourage them in a friendly constructive manner to go open-source (but don't expect that to have much effect). Rude dismissive comments are unlikely to have a beneficial effect no matter what context nor how true the content might be.

>Bela<

Jeremy Bicha writes: Will your restriction about use in repositories that could be used by embedded systems still hurt Opera's adoption? How are embedded systems defined? And why is it a bad thing for third parties to distribute Opera on these systems?

Originally posted by anonymous:

Will your restriction about use in repositories that could be used by embedded systems still hurt Opera's adoption? How are embedded systems defined? And why is it a bad thing for third parties to distribute Opera on these systems?

I also saw that restriction in the EULA. I think, they are mainly thinking about Internet enabled TV sets, phones and other gadgets. As far as I remember from different articles on the Internet, Opera is making a big part of their profit by selling the browser to companies for embedded use. The hole point of that line in the EULA, as I understand it, is to be sure that some hardware manufacturer will not embed Opera on a specific device by it's own will and for free. This is logical for me.

whitone writes: Last version of opera is bundled with openmamba devel !! http://www.openmamba.org/distribution/distromatic.html?tag=devel&pkg=opera.i586 openmamba is the first GNU/Linux distro with the new version of opera (with the new EULA) http://www.openmamba.org Download latest livecd snapshot, install it and then "sudo smart install opera" http://www.openmamba.org/distribution/media/livecd.html

I'll check it out, thanks! One of Opera's big reasons for supporting desktop Linux, is that it improves the quality of Opera Devices for Linux. Especially this new work on toolkit and font integration.

From Mandriva Wiki:

Opera: The Opera browser is now available in the official Non-free repository (this is a recent addition as up until recently the Opera license only allowed adding it in the restricted Powerpack repositories).

*-----*
Now I just need to wait for Mandriva 2010.1 and Opera 10.54 to have the best internet experience.

OffTopic:

@Rafael Luik: Yeah, if Mandriva still will exist in July when the release of 2010.1 is planned. You know, Mandriva SA is for sale, they run out of money and all the money they are left with is enough just for the salaries of the employees for May ... so, the future looks pretty dark, unfortunately.

Great news, I've already posted in on the Arch Linux forums. (http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=97486)