Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A "Large Hardware Vendor" Wants A EULA Displayed For Firmware Updates On Linux

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    Originally posted by bug77 View Post
    Well, it seems 70% of the respondents got it right already.
    Redhat will have him implement this feature anyway, probably hidden behind a "--with-eula-requiring-firmware" (renamed to something innocent sounding, of course) switch.

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by mlau View Post
      Redhat will have him implement this feature anyway, probably hidden behind a "--with-eula-requiring-firmware" (renamed to something innocent sounding, of course) switch.
      Judging by the guy's words, that may not be possible. He said adding this would break automated deployment. It wouldn't break anything if it could be hidden behind a switch.
      Fwiw I'm not entirely opposed to adding this, but I'd need a better use case than "vendor X wishes for it". For all I know, this may be a simple quality of life improvement for the vendor.

      Comment


      • #13
        What about option #3: let them display the EULA, under condition that it fits on one screen of 80x25 terminal.

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by edwaleni View Post
          Almost all vendors make you agree to a EULA when you download it, not when you apply it. Tell that "large hardware vendor" to do the same
          I think that is the core of the problem. *You* don't download the firmware, fwupd does, and it can't agree to the EULA for you. Apparently the "Large Hardware Vendor" wants the same controls in place as they currently have when you download the firmware updates directly from them (which likely have the usual disclaimers about usage, and no reverse engineering clauses). I would expect nothing less from the usual corporate lawyers (do things again the same as before).

          Perhaps the "Large Hardware Vendor" can be convinced to change their approach, or perhaps firmware from that company will not enter the global LVFS ecosystem, or perhaps enough people will prefer the convenience of letting fwupd do the updates in order to accept an EULA prompt in the case they own any of the "Large Hardware Vendor" equipment and it needs to have the firmware updated.

          An important question would be whether the "Large Hardware Vendor" will be offering the .cab (firmware) files themselves behind their own EULA download, which would at least allow individuals to download them, and place them into the usual places that fwupd can search for, or whether the "Large Hardware Vendor" would expect individuals to continue to use the vendors installation tools.

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by pegasus View Post
            What about option #3: let them display the EULA, under condition that it fits on one screen of 80x25 terminal.
            It's the same as option #2. No EULA fits in 2,000 characters :P

            Comment


            • #16
              It's fine by me..... I mean, we all lose if LVFS doesn't accept it. Getting it accepted, and "gaining" a command line switch or something to automate the thing, users have a choice. Having a choice is better than nothing at all.

              Comment


              • #17
                This is total bullshit!
                The only reason that comes to mind mind for someone wanting to do that is that they know they will implement spyware, backdoors and whatever other crapware and they want to take away the right of any user to sue them.
                I never saw any EULA or TOS where you can say no and still use the software.
                This is complete garbage.
                Lucky that user who said that in Germany all EULA's are invalid.
                That should be the case everywhere, not let these bastards use English-only, special selected words to trick the users that the crapware is for their own good.

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by flower View Post
                  Luckily i live in germany where all EULAs are invalid anyway (maybe except B2B - not sure about that).
                  Sorry for putting my law hat on, but it is not that easy: They are only invalid if you haven't had the chance to view them before purchasing the license. This would be true for most software which was distributed on a physical medium, but if they honor this requirement with digital distribution services they could have become part of the contract. This doesn't mean that every clause is valid though, as the AGB-Kontrolle still limits what can be enforced by these EULAs.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by Danny3 View Post
                    This is total bullshit!
                    The only reason that comes to mind mind for someone wanting to do that is that they know they will implement spyware, backdoors and whatever other crapware and they want to take away the right of any user to sue them.
                    Well... you're already using their firmware.... So.... What's different?!

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by CommunityMember View Post

                      I think that is the core of the problem. *You* don't download the firmware, fwupd does, and it can't agree to the EULA for you. Apparently the "Large Hardware Vendor" wants the same controls in place as they currently have when you download the firmware updates directly from them (which likely have the usual disclaimers about usage, and no reverse engineering clauses). I would expect nothing less from the usual corporate lawyers (do things again the same as before).
                      In general EULA is for End Users, not for the intermediate institutions/systems.
                      For example, OEMs may have installed some version of Windows to their laptops, but it's up to the customers (end users) to click "I agree" and proceed (or "reject" and then ask for refund).
                      Whatever was put into the EULA should be irrelevant to OEMs.

                      I'm guessing this "large vendor" must misunderstand the meaning of EULA and have added quite a few terms to make it not really an End User agreement.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X