Mozilla Demanding Firefox Display EULA In Ubuntu

TRS-80 writes "Users of the upcoming Ubuntu release, Intrepid Ibex, are being confronted with an EULA the first time they launch Firefox. Mark Shuttleworth says 'Mozilla Corp asked that this be added in order for us to continue to call the browser Firefox... I would not consider an EULA as a best practice. It's unfortunate that Mozilla feels this is absolutely necessary' and notes there's an unbranded 'abrowser' package available. Many of the comments say Ubuntu should ditch Firefox as this makes it clear it's not Free Software, hence unsuitable for Ubuntu main, and just ship Iceweasel or Epiphany, the GNOME browser." A few comments take Canonical to task for agreeing to Mozilla's demand to display an EULA without consulting the community.

Comments

What's the big deal?

[TheLink]

It's just making Ubuntu more familiar to ex-Windows users.

Blindly clicking through meaningless and offensive EULAs is standard practice in the Windows world.

Re:What's the big deal?

[easyTree]

Blindly clicking through meaningless and offensive EULAs is standard practice in the Windows world.

Mod parent up.. +1 insightful

Re:What's the big deal?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just making Ubuntu more familiar to ex-Windows users.

Blindly clicking through meaningless and offensive EULAs is standard practice in the Windows world.

Re:What's the big deal?

[Anonymous Coward]

We should include EULAs for every single piece of software that's distributed with Ubuntu. On the first boot after the install the user can be confronted with a few thousand click through EULAs! Or perhaps it would be even better to follow Mozilla's example and have the EULA prompt when the user tries to launch the program for the first time!

You are launching 'ls' for the first time. Before you use 'ls' you must read and agree to the following EULA...

An application is trying to access the 'printf' function of libc. Before continuing you must read and agree to the following EULA...

Re:What's the big deal?

[groovelator]

Okay, I'm pretty much a Linux newbie, but installing abrowser fucked my system.

Re:What's the big deal?

[Anonymous Coward]

..and +1 Funny and +1 Interesting and -1 Redundant and...

Sorry, couldn't stop clicking.
 
/recovering Windows user
//+1 slashie

Re:What's the big deal?

[Anonymous Coward]

How so?

Re:What's the big deal?

[Yfrwlf]

You could also make it more viral, so when someone tries to access your Samba share or print server, they'd get a nasty EULA pop-up, and when you tried to view a file you copied from a Samba share, it'd also request that you acknowledge that the file may be all bad because it came from the share, and then if you share that with others it would make them agree to it too!

"This file came from computer A which came from a computer which came from a program which came from a computer.........which is now on your computer B. We cannot be held responsible, it was their fault not ours, do you agree to hold everyone between point A and B responsible and not us?"

(Y)es master, (N)o - no + yes.

Re:What's the big deal?

[Anonymous Coward]

it's also been standard practice in the credit and mortgage world, if you haven't heard.

not free?

[Anonymous Coward]

How does the presence of an EULA preclude the fact it's Free Software?

Re:not free?

[lysergic.acid]

if you're talking about free as in beer, then no it doesn't preclude it from being free software. but when people discuss free software in the open source sense they mean free as in speech.

EULAs, ostensibly, force users to sign away copy owner & fair use rights. such contracts go directly against the spirit of open source and free software.

Re:not free?

[Gr8Apes]

It all depends upon what's in the EULA. Most EULA's have as a core piece what their software is not suitable for, which is pretty much everything.

Re:not free?

[pionzypher]

You're thinking beer, perhaps? Forcing end users to agree to a EULA before using a particular piece of software explicitly claims limitations on that software. I don't believe Opera (which isn't free either) required an agreement to a EULA. Though they of course retain all their copyrights and trademarks, they are non intrusive about it.

I haven't read Mozillas take on it, and why they require it to use their trademark. But it's annoying. One reason I prefer FOSS is the lack of EULAs, serial number entry and general 'stay out of the users way' attitude.

I have to admit that I scoffed when debian spun iceweasel, thinking them overly concerned with *any* encumbrance. I'm glad they did now. I don't care what name my browser takes, if it's compatible with the addons I use and works without trying to annoy me... even if it's just the first time it's used.

Re:not free?

[devman]

Except you are extending FOSS to something it isn't. Firefox compiled binaries with or without EULA have no affect on the licensing of the code itself. Since Firefox's code is in fact FREE (as in freedom) and FREE (as in beer) saying it isn't FOSS is disingenuous at best. Firefox's is as free as any other open-source project (Unless you want to get in to the BSD vs. GPL freedom debate), but Mozilla has every right to put an EULA on compiled binaries, which again has no affect on the distribution license for the source code and is mentioned right at the top of the EULA.

Re:not free?

[mr_matticus]

when people discuss free software in the open source sense they mean free as in speech.

No they don't.

If they did, it would be released into the public domain. Instead, it is copyrighted, with the restrictions in place relating to what that particular community thinks is an acceptable "price" for use, modification, and distribution rights. Sometimes it's truly free, like that users can do what they want in terms of using GPL software, but other times, it's not, like when you want to assert a right to distribution.

The major function of a EULA is notice. The license grant and restrictions is one or two sections of a greater document. The whole notion of a 'EULA' in general is an attempt to draw a false distinction between some kinds of SLAs and others, and to give the peanut gallery a chance to mangle semantics of utterly zero legal significance. They're all essentially the same. They all take the same form and become binding the same way. Yes, even the GPL. It's a fairly standard structure: recitals, definitions, license grant, license restriction, term and termination, warranty, liability, litigation provisions, and miscellaneous (trademark/patent license terms, export terms, international law issues, etc.).

They differ only in content and the nature of the restrictions. They're all license agreements. A license is just the grant and term. What an "end user" is or whether that's the scope of the license is up to the particular agreement, and people are entirely too sloppy with their use of the term 'EULA'--to the point that it is meaningless.

All of this is to say nothing about the obvious difference between the license on the use of the source code and the license on the use of the branded binary, which are two separate products.

Re:not free?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nitpick: Opera does require the user agree to a EULA.

Re:not free?

[init100]

but Mozilla has every right to put an EULA on compiled binaries

This isn't really about binaries, it's about branding and trademark. Since Ubuntu likely want to use the Firefox name and branding (for familiarity), they have to comply with Mozilla's demands. If they would strip the branding and call it something else, Mozilla would have no case demanding an EULA, regardless of whether the application would be distributed as binaries or source code.

Re:not free?

[RodgerDodger]

The only thing in the EULA that is not covered in the licensing agreement is a notification that they send details about the sites you visit to an anti-malware site, so that they can find out if the site is, well, malware.

You don't have to use this feature. But you can't use it without giving up a certain amount of privacy, because of the nature of the feature (anymore than you can hide the fact that you visit a website, because there's a log entry on the website's server)

Re:not free?

[Urza9814]

So do licenses. Guess we should complain about Ubuntu for using GPLed software too, huh?

It doesn't matter what agreements the software has. What matters is what those agreements say. I could write an EULA that simply says 'By clicking agree you agree that you can do whatever you want with this program.' By your definition, that would still be evil.

Re:not free?

[centuren]

when people discuss free software in the open source sense they mean free as in speech.

No they don't.

If they did, it would be released into the public domain. Instead, it is copyrighted, with the restrictions in place relating to what that particular community thinks is an acceptable "price" for use, modification, and distribution rights.

You do understand that free speech works exactly as you describe here? I have the freedom to write a book stating my beliefs, but that right to free speech in no way implies my book is to be released into the public domain, or that it isn't implicitly my intellectual property and subject to copyright.

Free beer and free speech are simple analogies, but be careful about nit-picking with them.

Re:not free?

[HUADPE]

The EULA for Firefox deals with the use of the trademark "Firefox," only. In order to keep the trademark, they have to enforce it. If the EULA didn't exist, Mozilla Corporation could lose the sole right to call a browser "Firefox." Iceweasel etc do not claim trademark, and thus don't have an EULA. But I can just make a piece of shit browser and call it "Iceweasel" and nobody can stop me. The EULA doesn't place a restriction with what you can do with the software itself, it only deals with the name and logo. You are agreeing to a license not to abuse the name and logo of Firefox, not anything to do with the actual code.

Re:not free?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people, when they hear "free software", think of something more like public domain than a particular license. They think they can do whatever they want with it, without any restrictions.

Basically, I think we should stop calling it "free software" because, according to what people think that words mean, it's not.

Re:not free?

[BitZtream]

There is reason an EULA forces a user to give up rights, and the Firefox EULA doesn't really impose any such restrictions outside of some that are common sense or required by law in the country that Mozilla operates in.

It also informs you that some data that you may consider private is sent to the anti-phishing system servers, which is GOOD for the user to know so they can make an informed choice.

Also, if you look at GPL v3, it actually requires that you notify the user of some of the things in the EULA at startup. See: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=963567&cid=25002187

Its unfair to consider are EULAs bad, they can grant the user rights just as much as they can take them away, just like the copyright and distribution license on the source code.

GPL grants many rights and includes restrictions and most people accept that it is a reasonable distribution license and have no problem using it and meeting the requirements of it, even though some source code licenses are horrible and don't let you even see the code in some cases.

You're responding with a kneejerk reaction based on the typical evil EULA, why not take a more reasonable approach and read the EULA before you decide its evil.

Guns can be used to kill people. They can also be used to save people. They still have their place in our world when used in a certain way. EULAs are no different. They can be good, they can be bad, and they also do have a place in the world when used in a fair manner.

Re:not free?

[Requiem18th]

Wait. If accepting the EULA means agreeing not to abuse the Mozilla Firefox brand, does that mean I can abuse it if I don't agree? Of course not.

  This EULA serves no purpose, Mozilla is basically asking Ubuntu to "say uncle".

Re:not free?

[xSauronx]

it seems that mozilla took their sweet time to make the request.

case or not, why didnt they care until now? ubuntu is hardly a new distro anymore, and mozilla corp isnt exactly new to this...so what gives?

Re:not free?

[mr_matticus]

You do understand that free speech works exactly as you describe here?

Not the way the Slashdot crowd understands it and distorts it. After all, any mention of the word copyright is bound to be followed up by some prattling buffoon saying that copyright restricts "free speech" (it doesn't) because it prevents you from "speaking" a certain sequence of characters (it doesn't) or prevents you from using that knowledge (it doesn't).

Slashdot never refers to free speech as it actually exists in law, but rather as it exists in their heads, where anything they can do is something they should have a right to do.

Free beer and free speech are simple analogies, but be careful about nit-picking with them.

I'll stop when they stop distorting the law.

If they're going to insist that "free speech" means "freedom to copy and distribute at will", then I'm going to hold them to it. GPL included. This is the consequence of their collective disingenuity.

Re:not free?

[jibjibjib]

They waited until an inconvenient time to improve the chances that Ubuntu would agree to their demands rather than changing the browser.

Re:not free?

[jibjibjib]

The difference is that the GPL only applies to people who modify the software. Ordinary users don't have to agree to the GPL just to use the software. So, most software in Ubuntu doesn't require the user to agree to anything.

Re:not free?

[stinerman]

Yes.

In fact, this was exactly why Debian rebranded the browser as Iceweasel.

Re:not free?

[INT_QRK]

Actually, Epiphany is an excellent browser, and would make an acceptable default. Then Ubuntu could offer Firefox in its repository for users to download as they please. Now it's reversed with Firefox as the default and Epiphany as a choice. That way, Ubuntu maintains its concept of "purity" while users can decide for themselves if clicking through a EULA is worth the price. I actually use both browsers.

Re:not free?

[KGIII]

It isn't "what people think that the words mean" it is what they actually really mean. GPL is not free software. It is protected by copyright. You can not do anything you want with it unless you adhere to the rules. If it were free there would be, you know, no rules. It would be truly free. Public Domain == Free. GPL Public Domain.

Re:not free?

[lennier]

"Guns can be used to kill people. They can also be used to save people."

No, guns can only kill (or not-quite-lethally wound, if you're a *very* skilled and extremely lucky shot). That's why handgun safety rules say you should never point a gun at something you don't want dead.

The best case outcome is that in a combat situation, where one creature is about to die anyway, you can choose to kill something you don't care about; trade one life for another. That's the closest a gun can come to 'saving a life'.

And you can only get that fake 'life saving' effect if you are truly prepared to remain completely emotionally unattached to the impact of the death of the living creature you shot. Doing that doesn't come without psychological consequences.

A simple first aid kit, on the other hand - that can *really* save lives, in a non-zero-sum way.

Re:not free?

[mdwh2]

Well okay, the Firefox source might be free software, but it's still correct to say that Firefox (i.e., the binary that people install) isn't free software. This is just like what happened with Google Chrome until they fixed their licence - sure, someone could compile the source code and install/distribute that, and that version would be free software. But that doesn't mean the binary version is.

This is important - for example, it wouldn't be possible for Firefox to include source taken from other GPL projects. That would be possible if Firefox was free software (it's one of the whole points of it, after all). However, I believe they can't release a binary with extra restrictions imposed on it.

Re:not free?

[KGIII]

If you approach me with a knife and I pull out a pistol and you run away I have potentially saved my life. An open mind is a good thing.

Re:not free?

[coaxial]

Of course the GPL forces to developers to sign away rights ostensibly in order to protect rights for redistribution and modification of source code. However, there is nothing in the GPL that prevents me from slapping a click through EULA on Gimp that says, "everything you make is mine." It does go against the spirit, but I'd say that a click through EULA that says, "Everything you make is Creative Commons" would be completely in the spirit of the FSF and the GPL.

Re:not free?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

You are agreeing to a license not to abuse the name and logo of Firefox, not anything to do with the actual code.

I'm sorry, but isn't this something that Canonical alone should be agreeing to if they're the one's whose right to use Firefox's name and logo is at risk?

I don't see the point in forcing users to agree to this, just so some company that said users have no official relationship with can retain the right to use Firefox's name and logo.

As a Firefox user, I think this is idiotic.

Re:not free?

[mdwh2]

They differ only in content and the nature of the restrictions. They're all license agreements.

The GPL is not binding, nor is it an agreement. You are free to ignore it. The problem with EULAs is that they try to impose extra restrictions on you simply by using it. The GPL does not - rather, it grants extra freedoms (which, incidentally, is where the word "free" comes in) that wouldn't otherwise be allowed under copyright law.

Re:not free?

[bentcd]

The EULA for Firefox deals with the use of the trademark "Firefox," only. In order to keep the trademark, they have to enforce it.

The EULA in question isn't any form of trademark enforcement. If anything it might be trying to make people aware that the marks /are/ in fact trademarks. The traditional way of doing this would be to accompany them with a TM or (R) depending on trademark status, not provide a bunch of legalese nobody in their right mind is going to read anyway.

Iceweasel etc do not claim trademark, and thus don't have an EULA.

"Iceweasel" might very well be a trademark. It might not be a /registered/ one but that doesn't not make it a trademark.

But I can just make a piece of shit browser and call it "Iceweasel" and nobody can stop me.

Not until after the fact anyway. The creators of Iceweasel most certainly could sue you for misappropriating their mark and they would stand a decent chance of winning.

You are agreeing to a license not to abuse the name and logo of Firefox, not anything to do with the actual code.

It is not necessary for people to agree not to abuse trademarks - they are forbidden from doing so whether they agree or not. If this were not the case I can assure you you'd see a lot of Mickey Mouse branded restaurants across the world.

It is altogether unclear what Firefox is trying to do with this EULA. Apart from trying to divest themselves of liability, the rest appears to be pointless blather.

Re:not free?

[mr_matticus]

The GPL is not binding, nor is it an agreement.

If it's not binding, it's not enforceable. If it's not an agreement, then you have the full right to use, modify, and distribute as per the license grant--since you never agreed to perform a return act in consideration for those rights.

You are free to ignore it.

I believe the FSF and the courts disagree. Moreover, the developers disagree--if you can ignore it, you can ignore the limitation of liability and the warranty disclaimer.

The GPL does not - rather, it grants extra freedoms (which, incidentally, is where the word "free" comes in) that wouldn't otherwise be allowed under copyright law.

Nonsense. Under copyright law, on a daily basis, I negotiate and grant distribution rights to licensees. Under copyright law, I draft letters about GPL enforcement. Under copyright law, copyright holders are allowed to sell or license however much of their work they wish to.

Re:not free?

[gnud]

when people discuss free software in the open source sense they mean free as in speech.

No they don't. If they did, it would be released into the public domain.

IANAL, of course. But as I understand U.S. law, congress limited free speech with regards to copyright. So, GP is right. Most people do mean "free as in speech".

Re:not free?

[mdwh2]

If it's not an agreement, then you have the full right to use, modify, and distribute as per the license grant

Yes, exactly.

I believe the FSF and the courts disagree. Moreover, the developers disagree--if you can ignore it, you can ignore the limitation of liability and the warranty disclaimer.

No, it's stated: "Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies. You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program."

The limitation of liability does not require you to agree to anything (since the user might not agree), it's provided for information. If I sell (or give away) a product with no warranty, I don't require the user to agree.

Under copyright law, on a daily basis, I negotiate and grant distribution rights to licensees.

This is why I said would not otherwise be allowed. Obviously, those rights can be granted. That's the point. That is just what the GPL does. This isn't want an EULA does (at least, the ones that people criticise).

Re:not free?

[mr_matticus]

congress limited free speech with regards to copyright.

No, Congress did no such thing, because free speech has never covered appropriation of the speech of others. The only such restriction is an administrative, not Congressional, one, and it pertains to the intricacies of independent creation.

Most people do mean "free as in speech".

They can't, because then there is no distinction between "free" and proprietary software.

Developers are "free as in speech" to release their work in whatever form they want. "Free" software has limits on it too--just different limits.

"Free as in speech" is a reference to the concept of liberty, but it's a faulty one, because they're not opening up--they're doing so in exchange for something, which is neither gratis nor libre.

Re:not free?

[spazdor]

If it's free software, the user has the right to modify the software to not include an EULA.

Re:not free?

[mr_matticus]

Yes, exactly.

Yes. You've just declared the GPL unenforceable.

So I don't have to contribute code, because I've already got a license, with no terms that I had to agree to, and you've said it's not binding anyway, so I've got the grant without the restrictions, because you can't impose restrictions on a grant, except in scope, unless you have an agreement.

This really isn't rocket science.

No, it's stated: "Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies.

It can say whatever it wants. That doesn't change what it is. If you do not accept that your right to distribution is limited, you have no license.

If you have to agree to do something in exchange for a right, it is an agreement.

That sentence is simply to inform you that you have no obligations as a user--not that you haven't assented to the license agreement. It's badly worded and utterly ignorant of licensing law

If I sell (or give away) a product with no warranty, I don't require the user to agree.

You most certainly do. You state your terms, and by going through with the transaction, they've agreed to be bound by them.

If they did not agree, then you can't enforce those terms against them, and you then can be sued for breach of warranty.

This is why I said would not otherwise be allowed.

You miss the essential point: copyright law is what makes these possible. Copyright law must be open to modification in order to make the GPL possible.

That is just what the GPL does. This isn't want an EULA does (at least, the ones that people criticise).

Neither the GPL nor a "EULA" does anything different from the other. Both grant rights and enact restrictions based on the exclusive rights held by a copyright holder. The copyright holder is under no obligation to surrender any portion of those rights to you, except under the terms they provide, with a few caveats. If you'd care to submit a provision from a EULA that isn't a restriction on scope and that you find objectionable, I'd be happy to discuss it.

Re:not free?

[MobyDisk]

They all take the same form and become binding the same way. Yes, even the GPL. I...They differ only in content and the nature of the restrictions.

That is completely wrong.

Copyrights do not become binding when the user agrees to it. Copyrights are binding the moment the author puts the copyright on the work. Nobody has to agree, it is always in effect against everyone in the world who lives in a country that supports international copyright law. This is a vital difference, not a semantic one. It is why copyrights should not be displayed in such a way that the user is given the choice to agree or disagree. The user cannot agree, and cannot disagree. The license doesn't even affect them until they try to copy the work.

If it was possible to display a copyright notice when someone copied something: burned it to a CD, copied it across a network -- then it would make sense to display the message.

Re:not free?

[gnud]

I was of course thinking of this section in your constitution:

The Congress shall have Power [. . .] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

And I just assumed that you have a copyright system in the US because congress chose to use that power. As such, it looks to me like a congressional decision, not an administrative one.

And free software developers are not nessescarily doing something "in exchange for something" -- if I write a piece of software and release the code under the GPL, you can use it without asking me, telling me or giving me anything. That is, at the very least gratis. I would say it also qualifies as free, if you look only on the user side of the issue. Now, when we talk about distribution, the accuracy of "free" is more dubious.

Re:not free?

[Anonymous Coward]

Opera, first run:

Opera Browser Information: LICENSE.TXT

Copyright (C) Opera Software 1995-2008

IMPORTANT NOTE

The Software, as defined below, is protected by copyright, which is vested in Opera Software ASA/its suppliers.

The Software may only be used in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in this document.

If you do not read and agree to be bound by the terms and conditions defined in this document, you are not permitted to keep or use the Software in any way whatsoever and must destroy or return all copies of these items which are in your possession.

END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT

DEFINITIONS

The following definitions apply to the terms and conditions included in this Agreement.

Opera

means a Browser, developed by Opera Software ASA, for reading and writing files to and from a network and/or file system.

Software

means Opera, all program and information files and other documentation which are part of the Opera Software package.

Individual

means a particular person.

TERMS OF AGREEMENT

This is a legal agreement between you, the users, and Opera Software ASA. By installing or using this Software, you agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. If you do not agree to these terms, you may not use or install the Software.

You are entitled to use the Software on all personal computers (laptops/desktops). "Use" means loaded in temporary memory or permanent storage on the computer.

You may not use the Software on non-PC products, devices, or embedded in any other product, including, but not limited to, mobile devices, internet appliances, set top boxes (STB), handhelds, PDAs, phones, web pads, tablets, game consoles, TVs, gaming machines, home automation systems, or any other consumer electronics devices or mobile/cable/satellite/television or closed system based service.

You may not sell, rent, lease or sublicense the Software, without the explicit written consent of Opera Software ASA.

The Software is protected by copyright laws and international treaties.

All intellectual property rights such as but not limited to patents, trademarks, copyrights or trade secret rights related to the Software are the property of and remains vested in Opera Software ASA/its suppliers.

You shall not modify, translate, reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the Software or any part thereof or otherwise attempt to derive source code, create or use derivative works therefrom.

You are not allowed to remove, alter or destroy any proprietary, trademark or copyright markings or notices placed upon or contained with the Software.

YOU EXPRESSLY ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT USE OF THE SOFTWARE IS AT YOUR OWN RISK AND THAT THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" WITHOUT ANY WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS WHATSOEVER. OPERA SOFTWARE ASA OR ITS SUPPLIERS DO NOT WARRANT THAT THE FUNCTIONS OF THE SOFTWARE WILL MEET YOUR REQUIREMENTS OR THAT THE OPERATION OF THE SOFTWARE WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR FREE. YOU ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY FOR SELECTING THE SOFTWARE TO ACHIEVE YOUR INTENDED RESULTS, AND FOR THE USE AND THE RESULTS OBTAINED FROM THE SOFTWARE.

YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE SOFTWARE IS NOT INTENDED FOR USE IN (I) ON-LINE CONTROL OF AIRCRAFT, AIR TRAFFIC, AIRCRAFT NAVIGATION OR AIRCRAFT COMMUNICATIONS; OR (II) IN THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION OR MAINTENANCE OF ANY NUCLEAR FACILITY.

OPERA SOFTWARE ASA AND ITS SUPPLIERS DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES RELATED TO: NON-INFRINGEMENT, LACK OF VIRUSES, ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF RESPONSES OR RESULTS, IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

IN NO EVENT SHALL OPERA SOFTWARE ASA OR ITS SUPPLIERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR FOR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF BUSINESS PROFITS, BUSINESS INTERRUPTION, LOSS OF BUSINESS INFORMATION, PERSONAL INJURY, LOSS OF PRIVACY OR OT

Re:not free?

[mr_matticus]

And I just assumed that you have a copyright system in the US because congress chose to use that power.

No, we had a copyright system in the US long before Congress existed. We also have a copyright system in this country independent of federal law, and if Congress were to stop using that power, the states would codify common law copyright. Of course, Congress is legally obligated to maintain the system as a signatory of Berne.

As such, it looks to me like a congressional decision, not an administrative one.

Again, please refer back to my previous post. The only free speech ramification pertains to the subject of independent creation and is an administrative (and judicial) creation, not a Congressional one.

Now, when we talk about distribution, the accuracy of "free" is more dubious.

And therein lies the problem. Gratis is pointless--there are plenty of gratis proprietary titles.

Re:not free?

[Daengbo]

Are you really this dense or just trolling?

If you don't agree to the terms of the GPL (which is cool), then you get all your rights under copyright law. You received the program for free. You are allowed to copy it for personal "fair" use. You are allowed to make copies sufficient for the program to run. You don't need to agree to anything to maintain your rights under copyright. Thus, it is not a user license. The GPL explicitly states this and your freedom to not accept the license and continue using the product. A developer cannot sue you for simply using a GPLed program without accepting the license.

If you want to distribute, though, you need to agree to the terms of the license because these rights aren't given to you under copyright law.

An EULA, on the other hand, requires agreement to use the program, or you will need to return the program for a refund.

Finally, EULAs in general don't "grant rights ... based on the exclusive rights held by a copyright holder." They only enact restrictions on the rights of the purchaser. The GPL, on the other hand, does not enact restrictions on the rights of the purchaser, and instead "grant rights ... based on the exclusive rights held by a copyright holder."

Neither the GPL nor a "EULA" does anything different from the other.

Congratulations. You have equated polar opposites. You are now ready for public office.

Re:not free?

[mr_matticus]

You don't need to agree to anything to maintain your rights under copyright.

You need to agree that the GPL, which came with the product, does not give you a right to distribute, even though distribution is one of the rights granted.

The GPL explicitly states this and your freedom to not accept the license and continue using the product. A developer cannot sue you for simply using a GPLed program without accepting the license.

He can't sue you because he's granted you the license. You are not free to refuse the text of the license--it provides notice to you of essential terms: warranty disclaimers, limitation of liability, notice of no right to distribute.

If you want to distribute, though, you need to agree to the terms of the license because these rights aren't given to you under copyright law.

Your agreement is based on your use of the software. It says so explicitly. You are not free to ignore the license at any time after downloading the software.

If you could ignore it, it would not be enforceable. There is a difference between not being restricted and not being applicable, and it's one you don't seem to be getting.

Finally, EULAs in general don't "grant rights ... based on the exclusive rights held by a copyright holder." They only enact restrictions on the rights of the purchaser.

No, because a SLA is the only way the seller is willing to convey the work to you. Let's take a look.

"Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:" 17 USC 106.

To do and to authorize. In whatever form they elect to do so.

In other words, if it's not prohibited in 107 et seq., the copyright holder can do it. That includes authorizing reproduction, performance, and distribution with whatever limits the copyright holder chooses to enact, barring independent illegality. The copyright holder can choose to do so in the form of an abdication of copyright (public domain), a blanket grant of certain rights (license grant), a grant of certain rights for certain purposes (limited license grant), a grant of rights in exchange for a return promise by the licensee (a license agreement), or a sale or transfer of those rights to a third party (assignment).

If there is any right being granted on the condition of a return promise, then it is an agreement. Full stop.

If the authors of the GPL wished to grant a pure license, there would be a separate document containing a separate grant of the distribution right. By including them in a whole, the entire grant then becomes subject to the agreement of the restriction--if no agreement is required, then the document grants the right of distribution, and, having no return promise, the copyright owner cannot compel contribution of source code. That the restriction only applies in a certain circumstance is immaterial. All users must agree not to distribute without sharing source code, whether they intend to distribute or not, because it is part of the conveyance.

Re:not free?

[mr_matticus]

That is completely wrong.

Copyrights do not become binding when the user agrees to it. Copyrights are binding the moment the author puts the copyright on the work.

Nobody is talking about when the copyright becomes binding. You appear to have missed something in your rush to declare someone wrong.

Re:not free?

[7 digits]

> The EULA for Firefox deals with the use of the trademark "Firefox," only. In order to keep the trademark, they have to enforce it. If the EULA didn't exist, Mozilla Corporation could lose the sole right to call a browser "Firefox."

That is bullshit. Software were trademarked before EULAs existed, and they never once lost trademark because of the lack of EULA. A simple short splashscreen with Firefox(tm) is more than enough for trademark.

Re:not free?

[Daengbo]

So you're obviously trolling or ignorant and have never read the GPL. It's a distribution license, not a use license.

Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does. -- GPLv2

All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated conditions are met. This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program. The output from running a covered work is covered by this License only if the output, given its content, constitutes a covered work. This License acknowledges your rights of fair use or other equivalent, as provided by copyright law. -- GPLv3

Several courts have completely disagreed with you, by the way.

Re:not free?

[mr_matticus]

So you're obviously trolling or ignorant and have never read the GPL. It's a distribution license, not a use license.

And you've never been to law school. A distribution license is a use license.

"Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted"

Did you read that? Each one is a use of an exclusive right. By excluding "running" from any restrictions, they are providing you with the terms of the license: an unrestricted license to run, and restricted licenses to copy, modify, and distribute.

Several courts have completely disagreed with you, by the way.

No, not at all. In fact, we just had Katzer to validate everything I just said. Your confusion notwithstanding, this is all relatively straightforward.

Re:not free?

[BitZtream]

I was thinking more along the lines of a gun shooting the deer I'm not fast enough to run down on foot, providing a meal for my starving family and myself.

As far as arguing psychological consequences, I'll tell you what ... you get killed because you didn't fire the gun and the *insert whatever you want here* killed you and I'll be happy to live the rest of my life knowing I killed *insert item above* instead of being killed.

Your first aid kit on the other hand is also capable of killing someone, if you want to just play devils advocate.

I realize your an anti-gun nut, but if you're going to argue the point, at least have a argument thats a little stronger than a wet noodle to make it worth my time.

Re:not free?

[Daengbo]

Since Jacobsen v. Katzer had nothing to do with what you're talking about, I'm going to stop feeding the trolls.

Re:not free?

[mr_matticus]

Katzer had nothing to do with the structure and means of enforcement of open source license arrangements?

I'm sorry, I must have stepped in a strange parallel universe.

Re:not free?

[Daengbo]

Or you're just an idiot with no reading comprehension.

Re:not free?

[shaitand]

Everyone is talking about when copyright becomes binding. You are simply attempting to talk around it.

I write a poem. I hand you the poem. By default, there are no natural or moral restrictions on what you can do with that material. Copyright law however, imposes restrictions upon what you may do with it. If Copyright law does not impose a restriction upon what you would like to do with the material, then you retain your natural right to do whatever that may be.

Those rights exist without any license agreement or EULA or any kind whatsoever. If you have acquired copyrighted material of any kind legally, you have rights to use that material by default without the need for any agreement from the copyright holder whatsoever.

If that material is software, I might also offer a license agreement that relaxes the restrictions imposed upon you by copyright law such as the GPL. Simply because that is the case does not magically require that individuals who have no need of that agreement be bound to enter into it. The only time the two would be connected is if I required the user to agree to a license agreement in order to legally obtain the material in the first place (EULA). If there is no EULA, there can be no restrictions beyond those imposed by copyright law because an end-user is under no obligation to enter into an agreement with the copyright holder to exercise rights they already have.

Re:not free?

[Anonymous Coward]

i don't have to confirm a EULA to drink Coke or wear Nike shoes, yet those are two of the most well known trademarks in the world. What do they know?

Re:not free?

[Legion_SB]

EULAs, ostensibly, force users to sign away copy owner & fair use rights. such contracts go directly against the spirit of open source and free software.

Does it not bother you that you're making broad statements about EULAs that don't apply in the slightest to the "EULA" that we're actually talking about?

Or are facts merely an inconvenience that impeded ranting?

Re:not free?

[moronoxyd]

I don't believe Opera (which isn't free either) required an agreement to a EULA.#

Actually, if I'm not mistaken, Opera displays an EULA the first time you run it.

Re:not free?

[mr_matticus]

I write a poem. I hand you the poem. By default, there are no natural or moral restrictions on what you can do with that material.

No. You're glossing over the part where copyright engages. You write a poem. It is entirely yours to control. By default, there are no natural or moral restrictions on what you can do with the material, having created it yourself.

Now you come to the "handing" off. What are you surrendering? Certainly not authorship or attribution, artist's rights that always remain with the work. Are you handing off ownership? Sometimes. Are you providing it conditionally? Almost always.

"Because you can't physically stop me" is never a justification for an act in a society. I do not subscribe to your view that a creator has no natural right to his creations. It's textbook cognitive dissonance.

If Copyright law does not impose a restriction upon what you would like to do with the material, then you retain your natural right to do whatever that may be.

This applies to the author, in whose body is vested a full set of rights.

"Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following" 17 USC 106.

In other words, if it's not prohibited in 107 et seq., the copyright holder can do it. That includes authorizing reproduction, performance, and distribution with whatever limits the copyright holder chooses to enact, barring independent illegality. The copyright holder can choose to do so in the form of an abdication of copyright (public domain), a blanket grant of certain rights (license grant), a grant of certain rights for certain purposes (limited license grant), a grant of rights in exchange for a return promise by the licensee (a license agreement), or a sale or transfer of those rights to a third party (assignment).

If there is no EULA, there can be no restrictions beyond those imposed by copyright law because an end-user is under no obligation to enter into an agreement with the copyright holder to exercise rights they already have.

This is correct, if the author chooses not to impose additional or different license terms. But in the case of most software, the authorization comes in the form of a conditional grant, without which, you have no rights to the work whatsoever.

Re:not free?

[mr_matticus]

I'll call that bluff. Point out to me any except of the opinion that's contrary.

Here's a link: http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?fn=_top&rs=WLW8.09&rp=%2Ffind%2Fdefault.wl&mt=NewLitigator&vr=2.0&sv=Split&cite=535+F.3d+1373

If you've got the authority to make such a claim, this link should open right up for you. Since, however, you are clearly both not a lawyer and utterly wrong, I guess this settles it.

Re:not free?

[Yfrwlf]

Right, and the kickback against all this is really about pop-ups and the lack-there-of in most open source software. Just because something is open source doesn't mean it's free of annoying stuff like this, but it's what most Linux users are used to. Going to a browser that asks me each time to agree to some BS when I run it? Hell, I'd install a version that didn't force me to do that if it was up to me, so I think it's very lame on Mozilla's part to try to force this on users. Once at install time I could live with though but EULAs are just lame, period. Put the legal crap tucked away someplace so I can read it if I choose to do so, but don't pretend that you're forcing me to read it when you know I won't.

Re:not free?

[Yfrwlf]

EULAs, along with the "normal" licenses, should not be forced in the user's face, especially each time they want to load a program, with an annoying pop-up. Basically no one reads them or cares, and if they do they should be allowed to read them in the Help menu or whatnot, but don't pretend that you're making the user read them by shoving them into their faces when you know they'll just click OK, it's immature and anal. I'll crack the program or install something else to avoid being plagued by pop-ups, so this is really a shitty move on Mozilla's behalf. If I can't circumvent something like that I'll use the re-branded version.

Re:not free?

[zsau]

Firefox's is as free as any other open-source project

False. The artwork distributed with Firefox is non-free. The source code from which Firefox is distributed is free, but that's not the same as Firefox being free.

Re:not free?

[gnud]

But you know as well as I that gratis offerings try to put legal limits on what we can use the software for, no reverse engineering etc. Whereas software under a "FSF-libre" (in lack of a better word) license grants you the right to modify it for your own use, and redistribute it under certain conditions. You must agree that it's closer to "true libre" than proprietary offerings.

A lot of people on this site prefers "FSF-libre" to proprietary software because they are freer to use it for what they want/need.

There is no concensus in the loosly kniw OSS community on what is the best balance between making sure that the software stays as libre as possible, and granting as many rights to the users as possible. The GPL is one attempt to do that.The Zlib is another. And if you think that Zlib license software is not free enough...

Re:not free?

[JohnFluxx]

Linux is also trademarked. Does that mean we should add a EULA that you have to agree to everytime you boot a new kernel?

Re:not free?

[richlv]

actually, opera pops up eula upon firstrun. i don't know how many of their users read it, maybe 0.01 % or so. granted, opera is non-free (oss) software, so it's a bit different situation there.

Re:not free?

[moronoxyd]

... and then it's called Iceweasel.

The code for Firefox ist free, but not the artwork and name.

Re:not free?

[devman]

Sorry, I don't really subscribe to the Debian definition of free. Firefox is FOSS, you can sub the images out if you like. Red Hat is the same way and RHEL is still FOSS, people don't piss and moan about it.

Re:not free?

[shaitand]

'No. You're glossing over the part where copyright engages. You write a poem. It is entirely yours to control. By default, there are no natural or moral restrictions on what you can do with the material, having created it yourself.'

Copyright is not a natural or moral thing. It exists only because of law. You do not naturally or morally own an idea. While I can do anything I like with the material I do not have the right to prevent anyone from doing what they like with it.

'"Because you can't physically stop me" is never a justification for an act in a society.'

Because you can't stop me is natural law. In a society we make laws that run contrary to natural law, such as copyright. Copyright works naturally copy to every person who hears or sees them.

'This applies to the author, in whose body is vested a full set of rights.'

False, and you can't quote rights granted by copyright to demonstrate what rights exist without that grant.

'This is correct, if the author chooses not to impose additional or different license terms. But in the case of most software, the authorization comes in the form of a conditional grant, without which, you have no rights to the work whatsoever.'

Yes, just not in the case of the GPL software we are all discussing. The GPL is not an agreement for end-users. It is an agreement for those who wish to distribute the work. The terms are for those who wish to distribute the work. It isn't a matter of end users merely not having to agree to the GPL, they aren't supposed to agree to the GPL. The GPL is something the person who distributed your copy had to agree to so that you would have a legal copy and all the natural rights that come with that copy.

Re:not free?

[MobyDisk]

Then I apologize. I saw your comment about EULAs and SLAs as being analagous to copyright as well. Since the discussion here is whether or not Mozilla should display a EULA, I thought you were tying back to that.

If you only meant to compare EULAs and SLAs then you are right and I agree.

Re:not free?

[mr_matticus]

Copyright is not a natural or moral thing. It exists only because of law. You do not naturally or morally own an idea.

Copyright doesn't cover ideas. The rest of the analysis cannot stand when you commit so grave an error at the outset.

Because you can't stop me is natural law.

No, it's not. Natural law is a premise flowing from the essence of an act. You have a natural right to life. Because you can't physically stop someone from taking your life does not mean killing is a natural right.

"Because you can't physically stop me" is by definition the absence of law.

Re:not free?

[mr_matticus]

A lot of people on this site prefers "FSF-libre" to proprietary software because they are freer to use it for what they want/need.

And it's a great tool for that. What it is not, however, is anything appreciably like "free" in the literal sense.

The holy wars are absurd. A software license is a tool. You use the one that does what you want. "Freer for your purposes" doesn't mean "free". It is a political and polemical distinction that is disingenuous at best.

You must agree that it's closer to "true libre" than proprietary offerings.

No, I must not, because it is not. It depends entirely on who you are and what you want it to do. It releases some restrictions while imposing others. A certain community may view it as more consistent with their desires--but another may view it as less consistent with theirs.

The only licenses that are appreciably close to the "libre" definition of 'free' are the BSD-style licenses. Freedom of options means freedom for everyone.

Proprietary licenses favor creators and upstream developers, GPL licenses favor users and downstream developers. They're just different tools. There are so many licenses out there, both proprietary and open source, that anyone can maximize "freedom" for whatever they want--or create a new license to do so. To talk about one being more "free" than the other is something GPL zealots do, and wrongly. You rarely see other open source proponents with the fire and brimstone shtick. It's obnoxious, it's factually wrong, and it's counterproductive.

Re:not free?

[shaitand]

'Copyright doesn't cover ideas.'

Incorrect. Copyright ONLY covers ideas. Actual tangible materials are covered by patents. Other forms of IP might protect an idea, trademarks, trade secrets, etc. As far as I know, the only non-idea IP is patents.

'Because you can't physically stop someone from taking your life does not mean killing is a natural right.'

Tell the rabbit and the wolf all about these laws you seem to think exist in nature. I'm sure they will find your arguments fascinating. Fortunately for them, natural law can neither be made nor destroyed by a poor argument.

'"Because you can't physically stop me" is by definition the absence of law.'

Excellent, you have conceded that in the absence of any law to the contrary that is the standard applied to all actions and behaviors. Including the use of the poem you handed me.

However, that is not the only reason copyright is not natural. What you are claiming is akin to attempting to prevent others from walking because you managed to walk fully upright before anyone else you know of. Once others see you walk upright, the expression of your idea, you can't make them forget what they saw. That idea now belongs to them just as much as it belonged to you and they have every right to express it in turn and let others see the expression.

The same is true of the Mona Lisa. I have seen the Mona Lisa only in Photographs, the painting was Leonardo's expression of his idea. The photograph is the photographers expression of the idea passed to him by the photograph. And in my mind is stored yet another copy of the image. There is natural or physical law that would give Leonardo an actual, moral, or ethical right to prevent me from sharing that idea in turn with others. Once it is in my mind it belongs to me.

The only rights you have when you think of an idea, be it a book, software, music, a drawing, or other idea that is or is not currently copyrightable is to not express the idea to others.

After all, ideas you don't express won't be transmitted to others and will be all yours... until someone else has the same idea. And someone else will, because your amazing idea, is actually only a twist on the millions of ideas you absorbed from the expressions of others throughout your life.

Most agree that the right to property is natural law. But your property is not the idea or the control of the expression of that idea. Your property is only the actual expression you created. Weave a rug, the rug is yours but if someone else sees the rug they have every natural right to make a rug with the same pattern.

Re:not free?

[mr_matticus]

Incorrect. Copyright ONLY covers ideas.

No.

"In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea..." 17 USC 102(b).

Thanks for playing.
Excellent, you have conceded that in the absence of any law to the contrary that is the standard applied to all actions and behaviors.

No. Absence of law == anarchy.

But it is a moot point because there are five levels of law to the contrary.

Weave a rug, the rug is yours but if someone else sees the rug they have every natural right to make a rug with the same pattern.

This is independent creation and merger. It does not apply to slavish reproduction of a work, ever. Natural ability != natural right.

Re:not free?

[zsau]

If you're not going to accept standard definitions, that's your prerogative, but you should point it out before making statements that depend on it. And I still think you have a false premise.

Firstly, and perhaps trivially, people don't complain about RHEL because Red Hat hasn't changed the redistribution terms without warning. Debian had had permission to distribute a DFSG free version of Mozilla Firefox, and then Mozilla unilaterally revoked that permission without warning during the late stages of the release cycle. Ubuntu had had permission to distribute a version of Mozilla Firefox without an EULA, and now Mozilla has unilaterally revoked that permission during the late stages of the release cycle.

More significantly, "Firefox" clearly refers to a piece of software only available in binary form, making it non-free by (standard) definition — and I think any definition that approximates the understanding on this site. The (free) source code that can generate Firefox is evidently not Firefox; this is the core reason Mozilla have caused such difficulties firstly for Debian and now for Ubuntu.

On the other hand, because Red Hat Enterprise Linux is not a piece of software, it's not correct to say it's "free software"; instead, it consists of free software. RHEL includes such matters as support.

Re:not free?

[dotancohen]

No, guns can only kill (or not-quite-lethally wound, if you're a *very* skilled and extremely lucky shot). That's why handgun safety rules say you should never point a gun at something you don't want dead.

I don't know where you learned to shoot (Hollywood, maybe?) but it is quite difficult to kill something by shooting a single bullet at it. Even at 10 meters it is difficult to hit in a combat situation. I'm well trained and experienced, and I know that I've got to empty a good portion of my clip to ensure that 'something is dead'. Luckily, in the army in which I serve, we are not supposed to kill the enemy, nor do we want to. They are much more valuable alive.

Re:not free?

[dotancohen]

That is bullshit. Software were trademarked before EULAs existed, and they never once lost trademark because of the lack of EULA. A simple short splashscreen with Firefox(tm) is more than enough for trademark.

I would prefer a one time EULA upon first boot than a splashscreen each time I start the browser.

Re:not free?

[BitZtream]

The point of putting it in the users face is that the user MUST say they saw the EULA AND AGREED to it before they can continue.

If the user did not see it and agree to it, they can not be bound by it.

You are irrelevant. You've already admitted you do not respect the law and have no problem breaking it, likely stealing the software as well, no one cares about you and the EULA you didn't agree to, you have no rights to the software in the first place because you already broke the license that allowed you to use it in the first place.

Do you live on your own? Do you 'crack' the lease on your apartment or the mortgauge paperwork for your home or loan paperwork for your car? What? You didn't? You signed it before you got into your home/car?

You're talking about being 'plagued' by pop-ups? I somehow don't think 'one time the first time the application is ran' falls into the 'plagued' catagory for most people.

I know it may seem to make you feel more manly for cracking it, but you are also likely to be the one to sue them and claim you didn't know what the EULA said ... you would also lose, and thats okay, because you don't deserve to win for being such a self centered ignorant immature person. The good thing is that you would STILL be bound by the EULA even though you circumvented it, since you had to go out of your way to try to 'cheat' the system, you'd lose pretty quickly in a court of law. You ever wonder why there are court cases arguing if a clickwrap license is valid ... but there are no court cases arguing for the person who cracked the software? Lawyers tend to like to win when they go to court, and defending such ignorance would require them to get paid a lot of money up front to deal with a case they know they are going to lose. The people who have the money to pay those lawyers aren't so dumb that they would rather do that than taking the 3 minutes it requires to read the EULA the one time it occurs, or they simply click through it and accept the consequences.

Your idealism is great. Your grasp of reality and the practicality of the world is non-existent.

Re:not free?

[BitZtream]

Dude, you have no idea! It takes one shot from 100 yards to kill anyone, even if the shooter is an unexperienced person who just picks up the gun and fires even though its obviously not at the person they are trying to shoot.

All gunshots kill people in a matter of seconds, just long enough for you to run up to them, cradle them in your arms and listen to them utter some poetic words about how they are sorry and its getting cold.

I've seen enough movies to know how people die from gunshot wounds, how dare you claim that Hollywood dramatizes these things and doesn't give as an accurate picture of the process in the last 3 minutes of our favorite TV shows! Next you're going to tell us that the gunshot would from a 22 in the gut doesn't kill instantly!

*joking*

Re:not free?

[Yfrwlf]

Lol, what the crap, no one wants extra licenses and that includes stupid EULAs which place extra restrictions on users and doesn't make it free software, I'll stick with the GPL and other free licenses and you can do whatever you want, k thanx.

Fair enough

[Joe Jay Bee]

Firefox is a trademark, Mozilla need to defend that trademark, and it's in Ubuntu's interests to provide a browser that people have heard about, rather than "Iceweasel", which they haven't. That, and I doubt Mozilla's EULA would be that onerous; the only people who are going to be truly upset at this are the people who hear "EULA" and kneejerk a negative response.

Re:Fair enough

[Mad Merlin]

Firefox is a trademark, Mozilla need to defend that trademark...

Linux is a trademark too. Does that mean I need to accept an EULA every time I install a new kernel? No.

Re:Fair enough

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is not the text on the popup. Click-through EULAs are void in many countries anyways. The problem is that they are grave usability bugs and should not be tolerated for any reason.

Re:Fair enough

[amdpox]

A good point, there are many GPLed chunks of code with trademarks that are distributed with the name and without the EULA. Mozilla, PAH. Then again, I could use IceWeasel, and everyone would think I use an obscure BROWSER as well! Just need to override the stylesheet to white on black.

Re:Fair enough

[itzdandy]

BS. They must defend the trademark to keep it but they are certainly able to give an unrestricted license for the trademark when it is distributed via offial channels.

Additionally, a EULA implies (expressly implies!) that the use of the program requires some compliance with mozilla.

What a dumb move in light of all the recent activity around webkit based browsers.

Re:Fair enough

[Joe Jay Bee]

That's absurd. The Linux kernel can't have a EULA of the sort being discussed - it's impractical. The point is, so long as the terms are not onerous, and I doubt they would be, there's nothing wrong with Mozilla having a EULA stating their trademark rights and such things.

Re:Fair enough

[FooBarWidget]

Maybe it's reasonable, but lots of people will be angered by this, whether it's justified or not. Firefox already has a bad reputation right now, and by this I mean that a lot of people complain it, e.g. about the AwesomeBar, invalid SSL certs handling, and how it has gone downhill since 1.0. I don't agree with them, but nevertheless, the number of people who comment negatively about Firefox is *very* high. This became even more obvious since the release of Chrome. Many people are already predicting the death of the Firefox or ranting how about Firefox should ditch Gecko and switch to Webkit.
For a lot of people, this EULA thing might make them snap and ditch Firefox completely. If that happens Mozilla will lose a bit of market share, maybe even a significant bit.

I'm wondering why Mozilla thinks displaying an EULA in Ubuntu is absolutely necessary for protecting its trademark. Are there no alternatives? What are the legal reasons for this decision?

Re:Fair enough

[Joe Jay Bee]

What a dumb move in light of all the recent activity around webkit based browsers.

Like Google Chrome, that doesn't yet run on Linux? Who does this matter to, exactly, aside from the vanishingly small number of people who take offence to the concept of accepting a license agreement? Certainly not the general masses to whom Ubuntu is targeted. Those general masses are more concerned with having a decent, well known web browser.

Re:Fair enough

[AceofSpades19]

when you get a big enough user base, there will be alot of people that complain no matter what you do, they could make it only use 8 mb of ram and someone would complain about that for some reason.

Re:Fair enough

[blueskies]

How are they defending their trademark?

the only people who are going to be truly upset at this are the people who hear "EULA" and kneejerk a negative response.

You mean like corporate lawyers?

Re:Fair enough

[sir fer]

Nothing wrong with Iceweasel, but heaven forbid users have to learn what a web browser is in general rather than remembering a list of brand names. I'm using iceweasel now. It's shit like this which made me ditch Ubuntu and switch to straight Debian. With Etch being plain awesome, I'm looking forward to Lenny a lot.

Re:Fair enough

[tboulay]

I don't see why Ubuntu doesn't just swap a few icons, change positioning of some of the menu items and compile their own flavor of firefox without an EULA.

Re:Fair enough

[Joe Jay Bee]

For a lot of people, this EULA thing might make them snap and ditch Firefox completely. If that happens Mozilla will lose a bit of market share, maybe even a significant bit.

To be honest, I doubt there are that many outside of the Slashdot peanut gallery that will hear about this, and even fewer of those will care. Anyone pissed enough with Firefox over the Awesome Bar etc will probably have switched, and if there's going to be a significant dip in market share then it'll be because of visible things like that; things that actually matter and are obvious problems to end users. A EULA ranks lower; ask the man in the street what he thinks about his web browser popping up a license agreement over its trademarks and his reaction will most likely be "So?".

Re:Fair enough

[Joe Jay Bee]

Because then they couldn't call it Firefox. That's the reason for the EULA; Mozilla is quite understandably protective of its Firefox trademark, and doesn't want it applied to builds that have been patched or changed by distros. Ubuntu punches above the weight of most other distros, however, and could probably come to an agreement more easily; they'd want their users to be able to find a browser they're familiar with.

BTW, what you described pretty much already exists in the form of IceWeasel, which was created when Debian found that the terms for use of the Firefox trademark were too harsh for them.

Re:Fair enough

[Darkness404]

Because in order to make Windows users think OMG!!!!!!1!1! I don't know how to use IceWeasel (or whatever the new browser is called) they recognize it as Firefox. Sorta like how people get confused when they get a new computer even if it has all their documents, same OS and same settings.

Re:Fair enough

[diegocgteleline.es]

The Linux kernel can't have a EULA of the sort being discussed - it's impractical.

It can, it just need to be presented to the user on install time. Just like Mozilla/Ubuntu should do.

Re:Fair enough

[Darkness404]

Lets see... When do Free Software/Open Source companies fail? Is it A) When they agree with the community or B) When they try to make it all corporate and businesslike? The answer of course is B. The tri-license Mozilla is distributed under along with the copyrights on the artwork and trademarks on the name are typical of many F/OSS projects that don't require the use of an EULA.

EULAs alienate the F/OSS community and make the software seem very corporate. It matters a ton to Mozilla and any user of Ubuntu.

Re:Fair enough

[Tolleman]

Thats what Iceweasel is. And thats how its done in Debian.

Re:Fair enough

[Joe Jay Bee]

Nothing wrong with Iceweasel, but heaven forbid users have to learn what a web browser is in general rather than remembering a list of brand names.

Brand recognition counts for a LOT. The average user (who, I hasten to remind you, is whom Ubuntu is ostensibly for) wants something they've heard of. Not "IceWeasel".

Re:Fair enough

[FooBarWidget]

I'm not really convinced. There must be *something* that they can do. For example, take the iPhone. Someone's iPhone melted the owner's pocket and burned his skin. Some magazines showed that the iPhone would occasionally drop the connection during a phone conversation. The iPhone platform is not open and is strictly regulated by Apple. Despite all this, the iPhone hype still exist and everybody still wants one. This shows that it is possible to market a product so that people still want it despite all the problems. On the other hand, I've seen people who are absolutely determined to see Firefox's demise in the coming few months, and this for a product that's essentially free.

Re:Fair enough

[Renraku]

I don't think that Linux would be able to protect its own trademark in a court of law, since its used EVERYWHERE. Its become too common.

Firefox, however, takes steps to protect its trademark. This prevents companies like Dell from loading up Firefox full of adware bars and 'phone home' software on their computers, and just calling it Firefox, instead of Firefox + malware.

Re:Fair enough

[X0563511]

Then we should all start filing it as a bug until it gets fixed or they put iceweasel in.

Re:Fair enough

[FooBarWidget]

"The answer of course is B."

Is that so? I've seen plenty of people who criticize that open source software will never succeed on the desktop until it's more business-like.

Re:Fair enough

[Darkness404]

The iPhone platform is not open and is strictly regulated by Apple.

Yes it is open. There is a thing called jailbreaking that has made third-party apps before Apple opened up the "App store". And honestly, because of jailbreaking the iPhone is much more open then a typical phone that doesn't run user created apps. And 6 months down the line that phone is still going to be closed while the iPhone will be even more open.

Re:Fair enough

[Skye16]

Dude, they're already trying Ubuntu. They already had to get over the fact that Ubuntu is a different word than Windows.

I'm sure they can fucking deal with IceWeasel.

Re:Fair enough

[X0563511]

Same here. I keep going back to Debian, but keep returning back to Ubuntu. Debian stable's repos are just too damn old, but testing and unstable are too... unstable. I'm not sure how Ubuntu seems to hit a balance between the two, but I would love to have a happy medium between Ubuntu's 'newness' and Debian's disposition.

Re:Fair enough

[itsdapead]

Firefox is a trademark, Mozilla need to defend that trademark

Since when did defending a trademark require that you get your customers to agree to an EULA? Do cans of a well-known brand of fizzy drink contain the words "by pulling this tab you agree to..."? Nope - the little "tm" after the name seems to suffice.

Now, if you're going to re-distribute the product, that the little "(c)" on the splash screen reminds you that nothing gives you the right to do that unless you can find the license that says otherwise - no need to make every user agree to a license.

and it's in Ubuntu's interests to provide a browser that people have heard about, rather than "Iceweasel"

Personally, I think that in a user-friendly Unix the web browser should be called "Web Browser", the word-processor "Word Processor", the spreadsheet "Spreadsheet" and the photo editor... well, anything other than "gimp" really :-)

Power users could re-map those to their favorite applications using some obviously-named utility like "kSPAD".

Re:Fair enough

[yuriyg]

To the "average" user, the Internet is a blue "e" on their desktop. Firefox and IceWeasel are more or less the same to him/her.

Re:Fair enough

[Darkness404]

Is that so? I've seen plenty of people who criticize that open source software will never succeed on the desktop until it's more business-like.

Ok, what are the most popular (commercial) Linux vendors? There is Red Hat which via Fedora is very in touch with the community, There is Canonical which makes Ubuntu which is very in touch with the community (overlooking the current Mozilla EULA problem), and Novell which had huge criticisms about patent issues that it was forced to become more in touch with the community. Then on the business side for the distros which seem very out of touch with the community we have: Xandros which very few people use save for the ones who haven't upgraded to a different OS on the EEE, and other niche distros which few use.

Re:Fair enough

[FooBarWidget]

"jailbreaking"

So it isn't open by default and you have to *make* it open? I don't call that open at all. Besides, there's this issue with Apple actively trying to brick jailbroken iPhones via updates. Saying that the iPhone is open if you jailbreak it is like saying that Windows is free because you can pirate it. I don't doubt that an iPhone is more useful than a normal phone because jailbreaking is possible, but to me it can never be called "open" as long as it isn't open by default.

Re:Fair enough

[DKP]

but they do not need to use an EULA they could place the message in the splash screen at start up and in the info panel.

Re:Fair enough

[ubernostrum]

Ubuntu punches above the weight of most other distros, however, and could probably come to an agreement more easily; they'd want their users to be able to find a browser they're familiar with.

Once upon a time, the same was true of Debian, and their official contact from Mozilla granted them an exception. Then, over a year later, out of the blue and in the middle of a release, a new Mozilla contact appeared, said "oh, we've decided that agreement is retroactively not valid, change what you're doing or face the lawyers", and that was that.

If they'll do it to one distro, they'll do it to two. Isn't it time Ubuntu got a browser that's certified Free software?

Re:Fair enough

[Joe Jay Bee]

Firefox is the one that's had loads of press coverage, from articles on the BBC to full page ads in the New York Times. Iceweasel isn't.

Re:Fair enough

[FooBarWidget]

Correlation is not causation. I'm not saying that a FOSS business shouldn't be in touch with the community, but still, a *lot* of people claim that open source won't succeed until it's more business-like. As for RedHat, they're recently being flamed left and right by the community because of the whole security breach issue - they're accused of being closed and corporate by the (Slashdot) community. I've seen plenty of people who say that RedHat is too commercial, e.g. the fact that they replaced their original RedHat distros with Fedora.

Re:Fair enough

[Anonymous Coward]

On Windows: all major browsers require clicking a EULA.
On Linux: no Chrome, no IE, no Safari. Opera's not in the repos *and* shows a EULA.

The percentage of people that will freak at a EULA for Firefox and go download IceWeasle is very, very small.

Re:Fair enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Those general masses are more concerned with having a decent, well known web browser.

Fine, let them use IE and Vista. Then they can take it in the ass like the rest of the MS idolators.

Re:Fair enough

[FooBarWidget]

I wouldn't say that. Maybe the user is trying Ubuntu per suggestion of a friend, not knowing what to expect.

For example, a while ago I suggested Ubuntu to a friend. She eventually got rid of it and said that it's too different. The primary reason being that the applications menu is on top instead of at the bottom like in Windows.

Re:Fair enough

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason I installed ubuntu when the hard drive I had debian installed on died on me was because I thought ubuntu leaned more towards the side of pragmatism and ease of use and less towards the side of free software absolutism.

With ubuntu I have to click ok when I play my first mp3, when I play my first dvd, when ubuntu first detects my nvidia card. It really doesn't annoy me all that much to have to click ok when I open up firefox for the first time as well.

The last thing I want is for ubuntu to start moving towards making it harder to install software that can't be called completely free.

Re:Fair enough

[A beautiful mind]

Mozilla is quite understandably protective of its Firefox trademark, and doesn't want it applied to builds that have been patched or changed by distros.

There is nothing understandable about it. This goes against the spirit of free software. The whole point of the GPL is to preserve the freedom to modify, patch and change software and now Mozilla tries to act like they didn't know this when they used a license that in spirit absolutely requires this. Mozilla tries to undermine the license by trademarks which is unethical and is reminiscent of a power grab. It is a power grab because there is no such thing as _control_ in free software. That's the whole point - to create an ecosystem which is not in a dependency relationship!

The point that they want to ensure quality and prevent bad versions of the browser being spread under the Firefox name is utterly stupid. People infecting firefox builds with viruses aren't going to care about licenses, so this argument boils down to the quality and control issue. Who is Mozilla to tell that Ubuntu's or their version of Firefox is better? In a free software environment they don't get to have that kind of authority to proclaim and enforce things. Mozilla acts like a corporation managing one of their assets and eventually in cases like this, this means that they choose their own selfish interests before the public's interest. Real F/OSS projects don't use legalese to pretend to protect the reputation of their code, but rather improve their code.

BTW, what you described pretty much already exists in the form of IceWeasel, which was created when Debian found that the terms for use of the Firefox trademark were too harsh for them.

It wasn't too harsh, it was unacceptable because of the licensing terms. Either that or they violate the core debian guidelines the whole distribution was founded on. It wasn't just the trademark.

Re:Fair enough

[Rary]

For a lot of people, this EULA thing might make them snap and ditch Firefox completely. If that happens Mozilla will lose a bit of market share, maybe even a significant bit.

I think you grossly overestimate the number of people who actually care about having to click "I Agree" on a box full of text that they won't read anyway.

The most recent estimates I could find showed Linux users at just under 4%, and Ubuntu users at about 30% of that. That puts Ubuntu at about 1.2% of all computer users. So, assuming that we can extrapolate to say that the percentage of Firefox users that are on Ubuntu is the same as the percentage of general computer users that are on Ubuntu (not necessarily accurate, but probably pretty close), then even if every single Ubuntu user boycotted Firefox after this (guaranteed not accurate, since I, for one, will not boycott Firefox because of this), then that's 1.2% of Firefox's market share gone.

I doubt anyone's losing sleep over it.

Re:Fair enough

[Darkness404]

Yes, but, a lot of the business-like distros claimed to have "solved" all the problems in Linux ranging from package management to running Windows applications on Linux. And none of them are even particularly used for that one feature they advertise so heavily on.

Re:Fair enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Firefox is a trademark, Mozilla need to defend that trademark,

That does not necessitate a EULA,

and it's in Ubuntu's interests to provide a browser that people have heard about, rather than "Iceweasel", which they haven't. That, and I doubt Mozilla's EULA would be that onerous; the only people who are going to be truly upset at this are the people who hear "EULA" and kneejerk a negative response.

The people who aren't going to be upset are the people who like reading EULAs. Or the people who are content to do the electronic equivalent of signing a contract that they haven't read.

Re:Fair enough

[mysidia]

Ubuntu just needs to strip firefox out.

And make apt-get install firefox install Iceweasel instead.

And make the icon to launch it just say "Web Browser"

Re:Fair enough

[cmacb]

I've managed to stick with Debian stable this time, but I manually installed Firefox to get the latest version and I've manually installed Picasa, Google Earth, Gizmo, Skype, SecondLife, etc.

It makes zero sense to me for these applications to be firmly tied to the distro. Sure I have no problem with it coming with some known stable version of Firefox with a funny name... it's just that I'm only going to use that version until the next version of Firefox comes out and then I do whatever I have to do to switch.

So, my suggestion has been all along that they deal with Firefox the same way they deal with Microsoft Truetype fonts for the web. Make a dummy package that does nothing more than download the target package from wherever it lives and then unpack and copy some files around. there are some things that have to be integrated with the distro, but there are certainly other things that do not. That would certainly be easier than the re-banding thing they are doing now (although they could continue doing that too if it is important to somebody).

Re:Fair enough

[OriginalArlen]

Mozilla is quite understandably protective of its Firefox trademark, and doesn't want it applied to builds that have been patched or changed by distros.

Why should that apply to Firefox and not, say, Apache or BIND or Amarok or...?

Re:Fair enough

[Johnny Loves Linux]

>I've seen plenty of people who criticize
>that open source software will never
>succeed on the desktop until it's more business-like.

I have too. They tend to have names like Gates, Ballmer, MonkeyBoy, Gartner,
PCWorld,BSA, etc.

Re:Fair enough

[pla]

it's in Ubuntu's interests to provide a browser that people have heard about, rather than "Iceweasel"

Why? Consider the target audience here...

1) Not-Joe-Sixpack using Ubuntu as an informed decision on a Linux distro won't get confused by Iceweasel.
2) Grandma, not wanting to pay for the Windows tax, will use whatever the "web browser" button does and not know or care what actually launches.


Mozilla has done the world a great service in the creation of Firefox and Thunderbird, but needs to get over itself. Pissing on their fans... Well, it may work for Apple, but John Lilly != Steve Jobs.

Re:Fair enough

[leereyno]

When do Free Software / Open Source companies succeed?

A) When they heed the desires of a bunch of Asperger's victims whose ideological zeal is only matched by their naivete.

B) When they respond to economic demand and seek to provide products and services to their customers that fulfill that demand.

Ubuntu is a success because it follows plan B. It stands in stark contrast to Debian, which is a poster child for plan A.

Beggars cannot be choosers, and the people who are going to get pissy about an EULA are definitely beggars.

Re:Fair enough

[Darkness404]

So it isn't open by default and you have to *make* it open? I don't call that open at all.

Its currently more open then my 3 year old Samsung SGH-A707. It doesn't support the use of any applications that aren't downloaded from the web. And because it isn't a "new gadget" like the iPhone is, it doesn't have a hacking community and 10 years down the road no software or alternative OSes will have been made for it. I imagine that 10 years from now there will be a different iPhone OS.

Re:Fair enough

[Chuck Chunder]

That may be true to some extent but that extent is certainly less than it used to be, in part because Mozilla has established a strong brand with Firefox.

However they have built that brand on delivering people a solid, no bullshit product.

By bothering the end user with something they don't particularly care about they are probably actually devaluing their brand through the very actions that are seeking to protect it.

Re:Fair enough

[BitZtream]

If an EULA like Firefox's bothers you, you don't deserve to use Firefox.

Seriously, its about as lax as it can possibly get while continueing to ensure their ass is covered.

EULAs are NOT bad in and of themselves. This is typical kneejerk reaction to a non-issue. Read the EULA, if you disagree with it, don't use it. Also if you disagree with it, you likely disagree with a lot of other free software's usage agreements, you just don't realize it because they don't show you and you haven't taken the effort to insure you do agree with it.

Mozilla is requiring that you be made aware of the agreement and that you willingly accept it to continue. They are making you aware of things they do that you may not like, like how data is sent to anti-phishing servers.

Like it or not, this really is important stuff that is a concern to some people, myself included. By them requiring you to agree with the EULA YOU actually get protections as well, as they too have to actually DO what they say the are going to do in the EULA.

Re:Fair enough

[m50d]

That's not the way it happened. It wasn't the Mozilla contact, it was debian's own people, pointing out that their deal with mozilla was against debian principles - debian does not allow itself to accept licenses which are specific to debian, believing this could lead to it distributing non-free stuff. (After all, that agreement meant that a user couldn't take debian, call it something else, and distribute it as a new distro, because they wouldn't have that agreement for the mozilla trademarks).

Re:Fair enough

[Haeleth]

To the "average" user, the Internet is a blue "e" on their desktop. Firefox and IceWeasel are more or less the same to him/her.

Not really. Firefox has market share in the region of 20-30%, depending on who you ask. It has been promoted extensively in the mass media, and has been installed by default by major manufacturers such as Dell. I wouldn't be at all surprised to discover that most computer users had heard of it, even if they don't all know exactly what it does.

More to the point, there exists a large class of computer users who are neither clueless nor gurus. These are the people GP was referring to, that Ubuntu is targeted at. They have heard of Firefox. Many of them even use it. If they log into Ubuntu and see a Firefox logo, they will feel at home. If there's no logo they recognise at all, they will have a few moments' trouble finding the web browser. This will not be good for their all-important first impression of Linux.

Fundamentally: Ubuntu isn't Linux for free-software zealots, it's Linux for human beings. It would be stupid to make Ubuntu less friendly just to make a political point. If you want a version of GNU/Linux that excludes useful and familiar software in the pursuit of political goals, then don't use Ubuntu. Use Debian, or gNewSense, or whatever else takes your fancy.

Re:Fair enough

[zicAU]

I am curious, what do people object to regarding the Awesome Bar? I find it saves me a lot of time Googling for a website I've been to before (or maintaining a huge bookmark list of every site I might want to return to). Is it too slow on some hardware? It's always been fast (enough) for me on semi-modern hardware.

Re:Fair enough

[FooBarWidget]

I really think that you're mistaking "usefulness" with "open". By your definition, an Xbox is open because you can mod it.

Re:Fair enough

[Randle_Revar]

>Mozilla is quite understandably protective of its Firefox trademark,

I think you mean "insanely overprotective of it's Firefox trademark". Mozilla has restrictions that no other FOSS project I know of has, all to "defend their trademark". But Linux, Apache, Gnome and KDE, to name a few, are all trademarked and they don't have those restrictions. Combine that with pointless EULAs, and non-free artwork, and you have a project that doesn't measure up as FOSS.

Re:Fair enough

[pbhj]

What a dumb move in light of all the recent activity around webkit based browsers.

Like Google Chrome, [...]

I think you miss the point about "webkit based browsers". If GP meant Chrome, he probably would have said it, I think he means all of them Konq, Saf, Chrome, and those not yet implemented. Chrome means more goodies _should_ get folded back into webkit.

Also more people run FF on MS Windows than on others platforms.

Probably the term "general masses" doesn't include me, but I couldn't care less is my browser is "well known" it has to work properly and offer the right features.

Re:Fair enough

[bhtooefr]

What if Canonical started distributing Windows and OS X builds of Iceweasel, and pitched it as a competitor to Firefox?

Re:Fair enough

[bendodge]

I've haven't heard any of the people I've upgraded to FF3 complain about the AwesomeBar. It's probably my favorite feature.

Re:Fair enough

[pbhj]

"The answer of course is B."

Is that so? I've seen plenty of people who criticize that open source software will never succeed on the desktop until it's more business-like.

I think those people mean "business-like in their approach to development" and not "business-like in their efforts to spread FUD and screw-over their customers".

Re:Fair enough

[Darkness404]

...And by being modded the Xbox is more open. My definition of open is: Anyone can publish applications for the system, Anyone can get the (basic) specs for the system, and The Firmware/Operating System can be changed. The Xbox is open. The iPhone is open via jailbreaking, my phone on the other hand is not, because I cannot publish applications for it (locally at least).

Re:Fair enough

[CSMatt]

Mozilla's copyrights on their artwork actually appear to be very untypical of free software. This was what fueled the IceWeasel controversy: Mozilla demanded the use of their logos if Debian wanted to continue calling Mozilla products by their official names, but the copyright licenses on the logos did not fit the Debian Free Software Guidelines, so they could not be used.

Re:Fair enough

[jlarocco]

Just out of curiosity...

If Windows is working well enough for your friend that she switched back to it over something as trivial as the location of the application menu, why would you suggest Linux to her at all? Obviously Windows is working for her.

I like seeing Linux use increase, but I'd like to think it's because computer users are becoming more savvy, not that Linux is becoming more identical to Windows. Linux is supposed to be an alternative to Windows. If everything is dumbed down to cater to ex-Windows users, it's not an really alternative, it's just a free version of Windows.

Re:Fair enough

[kestasjk]

Ubuntu has quite a bit more momentum behind it though

Re:Fair enough

[MBGMorden]

Shipping IceWeasel as the default browser I could understand. I'm fine with that. However, if they made "apt-get install firefox" install IceWeasel instead, it would be the beginning of an unholy shitstorm against them, and rightfully so. You promote your ideals as much as you can, but you NEVER modify the specific action requested by a user and twist it to meet your ideals. Pull it out of the repository and make people go manually install it if they wish, but if I tell my system to install one piece of software it damn well better not decide on a "better" one.

Re:Fair enough

[pbhj]

Nothing wrong with Iceweasel, but heaven forbid users have to learn what a web browser is in general rather than remembering a list of brand names.

Brand recognition counts for a LOT. The average user (who, I hasten to remind you, is whom Ubuntu is ostensibly for) wants something they've heard of. Not "IceWeasel".

Don't {K,}Ubuntu menus use the function by default. It's one of my annoyances in KDE-4.1 that they've not got around to allowing options for the new menu (which sucks enough already) and so things are listed as "Web Browser" and then when I mouseover I get "Firefox Web Browser" in grey underneath.

So the difference would be just that when I click "Browser" to open the browser I'll get a different title bar and logo.

Even the logo could possibly be used in some jurisdictions, did Moz get an exclusive license [ http://www.hicksdesign.co.uk/journal/branding-firefox ]?

Re:Fair enough

[cfulmer]

Look at Sections 15-17 of GPLv3. Sound corporate and businesslike?

Note that these sections are intended to apply to USERS -- they are effectively an EULA. (I know... "but, it's a distribution license." And, it is, mostly. But, ell me why a distribution license limits liability . . .arising out of the USE [of] the program . . .) That's right: the GPL is an EULA.

Re:Fair enough

[Anonymous Coward]

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" from Animal Farm - George Orwell... Mozilla and Ubuntu are just becoming the Pigs of our rebellion...

Re:Fair enough

[ArsonSmith]

You have just launched /bin/bash

EULA - blah blah blah.... ...
Agree Y/N: Y

user@host: ~/ $ ls
You have just ran /bin/ls

EULA - blah blah blah.... ...
Agree Y/N: Y
. ..
Desktop
Pictures
Downloads

user@host: ~ $ cd Pictures
You have just ran /bin/cd

EULA - blah blah blah.... ...
Agree Y/N: Y

user@host: ~/Pictures $

Wow I can't wait!!!

Re:Fair enough

[ubernostrum]

That's not the way it happened.

Actually... yes, that is the way it happened. Debian thought they had an agreement (which they cite in that thread) from Mozilla which would let them continue to use the "Firefox" name while avoiding certain aspects of the branding requirements which proved too onerous for the DFSG. And all was well until one day a guy from Mozilla Corporation (which, ironically, is not the entity which owns the trademark) came along and started the threat process.

Once again: Mozilla's done this before. They're doing it again. Isn't it about time we had a Free browser?

Re:Fair enough

[Abcd1234]

It's different. *shrug*

All the complaints come down to something like "I type 's', and I expect Slashdot to come up, not all URLs that contain an 's'". Personally, I love the awesomebar, but I see what they're getting at.

Re:Fair enough

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason I installed ubuntu when the hard drive I had debian installed on died on me was because I thought ubuntu leaned more towards the side of pragmatism and ease of use

So, do you enjoy the irony of having to wade through EULAs* in Ubuntu while Debian users just get to use the program?

*) sure, it's just one EULA now, but there must be hundreds of trademarks in Ubuntu...

Re:Fair enough

[gbjbaanb]

hehehe, I've an idea.. get access to her Windows system, unlock the taskbar and drag it to the top of the screen.

Re:Fair enough

[mysidia]

Actually, the action is not specific. The user just wants the Firefox web browser, because it's what they no about.

Since it isn't going to be in the normal repository, the friendly thing to do is to provide the alternative which is 100% equivalent to FF, aside from formal name.

It's common practice. I have distros in mind where "yum install java" or install jre gives me the GCC java runtime instead of Sun's JRE.

The "firefox compatibility DEB" should depend on iceweasel and include a readme file with a link to a website where you can goto, read and accept an EULA to download a "firefox-unsupported-proprietary-browser.deb"

Re:Fair enough

[gbjbaanb]

unfortunately the community doesn't seem to be in touch with the distros, the RedHat security thing seems to be more about shouting "OMG! security" than reality.

Too many people say RedHat 'sold out', but I think its ore a case of geek-religion getting the better of them, the RedHat users say its all ok, the non-RedHat users scream thsi issue up.

Generally, the same applies to the Debian security issue, but with the different groups on ther opposite side that time.

Re:Fair enough

[gbjbaanb]

yeah, all software should do what I want, not what I tell it to do :-)

I reckon its all because the awesome bar is different, geeks are very conservative.

Re:Fair enough

[JohnFluxx]

Go vote on the bug report then:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=439604

Re:Fair enough

[Anonymous Coward]

What is fair in having to comply to US export controls if I want to use Firefox? Is all development of Firefox done in the US or what?

How do I even keep up with "all export and import laws and restrictions and regulations" with regard to Firefox?

Re:Fair enough

[Jorophose]

To be honest, if it wasn't for being multi-platform, and being very open (artwork is still considered non-free by debian), there would be no advantage to using Firefox... Maybe plugins. But that's it.

Opera is a lot faster. Qt is a lot nicer than XUL, not being written in JS (AFAIK). Opera has a lot of features built in that Firefox needs extensions for. But they're not all the same. Opera innovates a lot, so does Firefox, but they come so close nobody knows who's picking on who.

But Opera is non-free.

Webkit is great, sure. But other than Epiphany, who uses Webkit with GTK? Midori? Kazehakase? That's about it. And if we're discussing "usability", Firefox is the only browser I'd ever ship with an OS, ever. Safari is not an option. Google Chrome is windows-only and a lot of its features are just gimmicky things (boiling down to Tamarin vs V8, and threads vs processes, neither of which is meaningful).

Webkit is great, sure. But just not there.

Just ship the EULA Ubuntu. Put it at install time?

Re:Fair enough

[houghi]

Wether or not it is impractical is irrelevant. The question is if it is needed tp protect the trademark and that is not the case.

Re:Fair enough

[petermgreen]

There are two seperate issues with the "awsomebar", presentation and alogorithm.

The presentation is imo horrible, rather than a list of urls I can look through for the one I want I get information overload. Fortunately I can change the presentation back with an extension.

The second is the algorithm, the new bar uses a learning algorithm and in my experiance works very well once trained. However it tends to act in a rather unpredictable and perplexing manner for a while before it learns what you want.

Re:Fair enough

[Anonymous Coward]

And that's why open source software will never succeed on the desktop.

Ok, it all depends on the definition of "success".

Re:Fair enough

[BlackCreek]

>Mozilla is quite understandably protective of its Firefox trademark,

I think you mean "insanely overprotective of it's Firefox trademark". Mozilla has restrictions that no other FOSS project I know of has, all to "defend their trademark". But Linux, Apache, Gnome and KDE, to name a few, are all trademarked and they don't have those restrictions.

AFAIK None of the other projects you quoted are making a a hell lot of money from their trademarks. The Linux Foundation used to license the "Linux" name in a particular way, but the money they got from it has always been peanuts.

Re:Fair enough

[petermgreen]

Or the people who are content to do the electronic equivalent of signing a contract that they haven't read.
Which afaict means the majority of computer users :/

Re:Fair enough

[rpetre]

user@host: ~ $ cd Pictures You have just ran /bin/cd

EULA - blah blah blah.... ... Agree Y/N: Y

Actually, cd is a shell builtin, so you'll get by without an EULA, it's covered by the bash EULA you accepted when you started bash :)

Re:Fair enough

[Josh Triplett]

That's not the way it happened. It wasn't the Mozilla contact, it was debian's own people, pointing out that their deal with mozilla was against debian principles - debian does not allow itself to accept licenses which are specific to debian, believing this could lead to it distributing non-free stuff. (After all, that agreement meant that a user couldn't take debian, call it something else, and distribute it as a new distro, because they wouldn't have that agreement for the mozilla trademarks).

While Debian indeed does not accept software which provides freedom only to Debian and not to others (point 8 of the Debian Free Software Guidelines, "License Must Not Be Specific to Debian", reflected in point 8 of the Open Source Definition), this does not in any way relate to why Debian could not distribute Firefox under the name "Firefox".

Debian has no problem with licenses that grant additional freedoms to Debian or its users, as long as everyone has all the necessary freedoms of Free Software. Debian had no problem accepting the permission to distribute Firefox as Firefox, with the understanding that Debian users who modified Firefox would have to "unbrand" it themselves.

However, Debian shipped Firefox branded as Firefox together with the unofficial logos and other branding, because Mozilla's official logos and branding did not have a Free Software license. The aforementioned contact from Mozilla, Gervase Markham, had previously given permission for Debian to do this. However, another Mozilla contact subsequently insisted that Debian could not do this, and that they must 1) ship the official (non-free) branding and 2) run every change by Mozilla reviewers before shipping it. The second condition would make Firefox maintenance an even more onerous task, and the first would make it impossible to ship Firefox in Debian main.

As a result, in order to ship Firefox at all in Debian main, Debian had to "unbrand" it.

Re:Fair enough

[HHacim]

Ah,but mp3 and mpeg decoders/encoders are hindered by patents and the nvidia drivers are closed source binary blobs (read not free).Where as firefox is FLOSS.So your post rather misses the point.

Re:Fair enough

[rpetre]

I know you are just trying to make a point, but I hope that deep down you realise that Debian is not a company and it's a fundamentally non-profit organization, right?

Re:Fair enough

[steampoweredlawngnom]

To be fair, Firefox does not use the GPL. They use the Mozilla Public License. The GPL is irrelevant to this discussion.

Re:Fair enough

[amirulbahr]

Fork Chromium.

Re:Fair enough

[Henry V .009]

Whoever decided that typing in "w" to the "awesomebar" should bring up other sites that start with "www" was in the middle of a bad trip.

Re:Fair enough

[Zaiff Urgulbunger]

FWIW not everyone having a kneejerk to this! *I* understand that Mozilla are doing this for legal reasons, and I understand that the EULA itself, it no biggy to agree to. However, one thing I have enjoyed using Ubuntu is that I can install software without having the click through EULAs that are without a doubt, absolutely and completely of no use to me. I don't read them. I don't care for them.

So.... would it not be better to just tuck the agreement away under the Help/About screen or something? Or is that not quite enough?

Re:Fair enough

[Anonymous Coward]

If by not failing you mean becoming profitable, then B is the *right* thing to do.. No businesslike-ness means no businesses will trust you.

Re:Fair enough

[mdwh2]

Read the EULA, if you disagree with it, don't use it.

And if I disagree with it, but still want to use it? This is exactly the problem with EUL"A"s.

Re:Fair enough

[Zaiff Urgulbunger]

True!

But on the other hand, now having an EULA imposed on Ubuntu and thus forcing me to view the EULA (or at least the top few lines) and check an "I agree" box and click a Next button *does not* benefit me at all and *is not* a step forward.

And again, not wishing to sound like a scratched record, I understand Mozilla are doing this for legal reasons but I can see no practical benefit in making this a click-thru agreement. Apart from anything, previous Ubuntu releases have shipped with Firefox and have not required this.... so surely that would undermine any possible legal case? If I compiled and shipped my own "Firefox Evil-edition" I only need make sure I use the sources from a pre Ubuntu 9.04 release, and I'm legally covered... surely?! :D

Re:Fair enough

[kklein]

The answer of course is B.

[citation needed]

Re:Fair enough

[mdwh2]

But those sections do not require you to agree to anything, so this is still not an EULA. Although companies often put these statements in their EULAs too, those are not the bits which people have a problem with. The problem is that it's claimed you have to agree to the EULA in order to use the software.

You don't have to agree to the GPL in order to use GPL software: "You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program."

Re:Fair enough

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I buy into that, but then I started thinking that Open Office probably wouldn't take to kindly to a fork that added some functions to the the code to then call itself "Open Office". I'm not sure they would threaten - but they wouldn't like it for the reasons you cite (is a security vulnerability added, etc.).

So Mozilla probably doesn't want a fork to be called FireFox either. It seems to make sense in that regard. Now, does Ubuntu add/remove/change code in FireFox? Or do they just ship it as is from Mozilla? If they change anything, I can sort of see where Mozilla is coming from.

I think maybe it just isn't as cut and dried as people are making it out to be: there is probably a decent argument on either side.

Re:Fair enough

[X0563511]

No, I meant a bug report at Launchpad. Mozilla can do what they want, it is their trademark. Ubuntu can choose to play ball or go do something like Debian did with Iceweasel.

I vote we push them to go with Iceweasel.

Re:Fair enough

[Anonymous Coward]

We do have a free browser. It's called Konqueror. It's more standards-compliant than Firefox, uses less memory, renders faster, and is generally much more pleasant to use.

Re:Fair enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Trademark law is there to protect consumers, not the trademark holders. If Ubuntu shipped an unmodified Firefox, I don't see how Mozilla would have any legal power to stop them from doing so: after all, what consumer confusion it there in that situation? It was one thing when they modified Firefox, and there was a chance that people would think that this is Mozilla's Firefox, and would blame bugs on them, even when it was Ubunutu's fault. But, if it's the pristine vanilla Firefox, there's no trademark reason to require displaying a EULA, just like there's no trademark reason to display a EULA for Linux (the kernel).

Of course, this isn't an issue of trademarks. This a copyright issue. The logo isn't just trademarked, but it's also copyrighted. And I don't mean copyrighted like the rest of the source, but full-on 'All Rights Reserved' copyrighted. That's right. Firefox-with-the-logo is not Free Software, and it's not Open Source. It really is proprietary. That's why Debian doesn't ship Firefox proper. If you are wondering why they would need this sort of extra legal "protection", considering that everything else is copylefted, and they still have their trademarks (on both the name and the logo), this is exactly the reason. Their old-time evil Netscape lawyers still haven't been fired, it would seem. Disgusting.

Re:Fair enough

[cfulmer]

That's an excellent point, but do you think that the amount of damages you can claim can be limited *without* your agreement?

The problem is that if you want to disclaim warranties or limit liability (or do any of a number of other things), the user has to be aware of the restriction and they have to accept that somehow. This is why companies use so-called "click-wrap" agreements -- it's a sure way to know that a person accepted the license.

Consider this case: you publish a nice piece of software, put it up on your website and invite people to download and run it. There is never a prominent place there where you tell them it's licensed to them under the GPL. I install your software and it deletes all my files. I sue you for my lost business, the time to recover the files, etc.... You say, "But, it was licensed under the GPL, which says that I'm not liable to you." And, my response is, "You never showed that to me. Had I known about it, I would not have installed the software." I now have a much better chance of getting a lot of money from you than I would have if you had made me click-through the GPL when I installed your software.

Re:Fair enough

[Anonymous Coward]

I couldnt agree less. I have been running Debian Sid for years, and aside from the occaisional gotcha, its been a much more stable road then Ubuntu.

In the last 3 months or so I switched from Debian to Sidux Debian, using SMXI script to maintain a smooth upgrade path. I couldnt be happier. By far the bast Linux experience so far. Disclaimer: Of course this is for Desktop and Laptop use ONLY. This is NO WAY to run a server.

Re:Fair enough

[leereyno]

You're making my point for me.

Non-profit doesn't mean non-competitive. Debian has always been a geeks only version of Linux precisely because it doesn't seek to meet the needs of anyone else, whereas Ubuntu does.

Re:Fair enough

[Eskarel]

Might I point out that if the OpenSSL people did the same thing that Mozilla does a whole bunch of certificates wouldn't have been insecure for two years and wouldn't have had to be recreated at what is likely great expense.

For better or worse, when a company releases a product, even when it's open source. That company takes the blame/credit for the program. When people make unauthorized changes they can make things better, but they can also(as evidenced by the ssl situation) make things worse.

Mozilla doesn't really care if you redistribute firefox under whatever name you want to call it, and they don't really care if you use the gecko rendering engine in whatever you want to use it in.

What they do care about is their brand and their image, because, when you're working as close to the end user as they are, that perception matters.

Pretty much everyone who knew about the OpenSSL issue in debian knew why it happened and who to blame, that's because people who know how certificates work, also tend to understand that sort of thing.

The users of things like web browsers don't always have that kind of technical knowledge. If Debian, or Ubuntu, or anyone else for that matter modifies Firefox and cocks it up(as they're obviously capable of doing, see openssl) then the Mozilla Foundation and Firefox take the blame. That means fewer people use Firefox, and more people use IE.

You can bet that chrome will have exactly the same requirements because Google's brand name is even more valuable than Mozilla's.

To sum up, this isn't about your ability to share, modify, do whatever you want to the code(you still have that right), it's about you not being able to screw up and cause damage to the Mozilla Foundation's reputation.

That reputation is obviously worth something or folks like Ubuntu and Debian wouldn't be agreeing to the license, and so as that reputation has a value, Mozilla quite understandably wants to protect it.

Re:Fair enough

[Randle_Revar]

MySQL, Xen and Zope are trademarked, but their policies haven't caused problems in Debian or other distros.

Re:Fair enough

[mdwh2]

It's not clear to me that damages could be limited with your agreement - e.g., you can't give up your right to sue, in many countries.

But if agreement does make a difference anyway, then the GPL is out of luck. If I was suing a GPL author for damages, the first thing I will say is that I didn't accept the GPL.

So the GPL is not trying to force users to agree to things like an EULA - it's just hoping that presenting information on lack of liability may help to limit damages (this seems reasonable: for example, if I sell something and say "This is not intended for use as a boat", and someone goes and uses it as a boat, and it sinks, they wouldn't have much luck suing me. It doesn't matter whether they agree to anything, all that matters is that they were informed of the purpose of my device).

There is never a prominent place there where you tell them it's licensed to them under the GPL.

But now you're conflating informing the user (putting the information in a prominent place) with requiring agreement. Sure, put the information up on the website, or when they install the program. No one has a problem with those kinds of messages. The problem is an EULA which says that you must "agree" with the terms in order to use the program. Which is not the case here.

Re:Fair enough

[MBGMorden]

Java is a special case scenario because it's name is ambiguous. The name refers to both a specifc app, but also the general language is always called "Java", and there are many implementations of it. Firefox is different. It's solely the name of an application, and not of a TYPE of application. No ammount of nitpicking is going to get around the fact that when a user requests that "firefox" be installed, it is highly inappropriate for the system to install ANYTHING other than Firefox. They can have the repository not contain the package if they like. They can print a nice message explaining WHY it's not in the repository and saying that they can install apt-get install iceweasel, but what I choose to install on MY system is where their idealogy ends. You don't usurp a user's control because you think they're making a bad choice. That goes against the very ideals that open source is meant to be standing for.

Re:Fair enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you realise that cd cannot be an external command? It must be built in to the shell.

Re:Fair enough

[the_B0fh]

Lets all campaign and ask Linus to add a EULA to the linux kernel without onerous terms, exerting his trademark rights and such things!

After all, we can't have people mistaking the linux os for some other shitty os like windows.

We must exert our trademarks!! For eleventeen hundred years! And really, we should make it a law so that every piece of software has an EULA so that the authors can exert their rights and such things!

Re:Fair enough

[the_B0fh]

You are wrong. No matter how badly anyone screws up on firefox on linux, there's no way these people will run IE. The people who run it through wine are already doing it anyways.

Re:Fair enough

[rpetre]

Ok, let me try again:

Debian is a community organized around making a free operating system. One of its main tenets is the lack of restrictions for its users, and so far is has achieved two somewhat contradicting feats: biggest number of packages and biggest number of supported architectures.

Ubuntu chose to optimize a part of Debian (a subset of packages, the main architectures) to produce a marketable distribution. How profitable this approach is, remains to be seen.

What I'd like to point out is that the much larger "market" of Debian is totally non-profitable and thus reachable only by means of voluntary work. I'm still amazed by the number of languages Debian is translated in, and I believe for a number of them it's the only OS translated, because it's not profitable to invest money in translating your software for a population of a few thousand souls.

Yet again, re-reading your previous comment, we probably have different definitions for "success". I'd like you to think what "success" means for Unicef or Greenpeace or WWF or other non-profit organizations. Not everything in this world revolves around money, you know...

Re:Fair enough

[barry99705]

You mean like the average slashdot reader?

Re:Fair enough

[Hal_Porter]

That's not the way it happened.

Actually... yes, that is the way it happened. Debian thought they had an agreement (which they cite in that thread) from Mozilla which would let them continue to use the "Firefox" name while avoiding certain aspects of the branding requirements which proved too onerous for the DFSG. And all was well until one day a guy from Mozilla Corporation (which, ironically, is not the entity which owns the trademark) came along and started the threat process.

Once again: Mozilla's done this before. They're doing it again. Isn't it about time we had a Free browser?

Yeah, just like we have a free SSL package.

Re:Fair enough

[cfulmer]

Your first point is valid. I'm only familiar with US law, and there are limits to how much liability you can agree to do away with in a contract.

As to your last, you can manifest agreement in a number of ways. The easiest it to click on something that says "I agree." But, if you're given a license, told "your use of this product is governed by this license," and then use the product, you have agreed to the license, even if you never clicked "Agree."

Open source licenses like the GPL have the same basic "acceptance" problem. It's just that nobody worries about it since users of GPL software usually are aware of the GPL when they download it. Plus, some open-source software requires acceptance on install.

The problem with Ubuntu (and a bunch of other packages), though, is that the software comes pre-installed, and so the user never sees the license. And, if you don't know about the license, you can't be bound to it.

(The GNU folks will argue, approximately, "well, if you didn't accept the license, then you must be infringing the copyright of the software." That's correct, so far as it goes. But, there are other ways to get permission to run, such as Section 117 of the copyright act (in the US) or just an implied license. It's possible to argue "Well, you gave it to me without telling me you were licensing it under the GPL. Why should the GPL apply at all instead of the default set of rules for when this happens?")

Re:Fair enough

[BitZtream]

Too bad. Its not an option. You don't always get your way in life, deal with it. Especially when you have god knows how many alternatives that don't come with the 'problem'.

Unless your a teenager you should know this already, for some reason that particular mental process escapes teenagers, but even 6 year olds get this point ... well, most of them, America is getting pretty bad at raising kids to know there are limits in the world.

Re:Fair enough

[emiraga]

$ which cd which: no cd in (...) "cd" is usually part of the shell. lol.

Re:Fair enough

[steelfood]

No, OSS won't succeed on the desktop until the project leads stop thinking that everyone's computer-literate and start catering to the lowest common denominator when it comes to usage experience. The attitude that every user should be as smart and proficient with computers as the person coding the software is what kills OSS adoption on the desktop.

Obviously, some people have taken this to mean that OSS has to be more "business-like" instead of "hobby-like." But being "business-like" doesn't really address the fundamental flaw, it only wraps the issue in a likely agenda-motivated argument. You can still have UI experts and graphic designers and marketers on board a project while still maintaining its hobby status and culture. You can even have a lawyer too, but that lawyer needs to be pretty damn good and understand the OSS philosophy. The company that sent out authorization notices to fan sites violating their trademark comes to mind.

Re:Fair enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Bugs have been filed noting the primary problem with iceweasel. The icon looks like a booger at certain sizes.

Re:Fair enough

[Anonymous Coward]

You have initiated the cd function within bash

EULA addendum -- Blah blah blah

Agree y/n:

Re:Fair enough

[Repossessed]

Since when has Canonical cared about free software? Principle wise at least, they've been great for the community of course, but Ubuntu has always been loaded down with non free drivers but default. If Firefox were closed source, I doubt they would care too much.

Re:Fair enough

[ArsonSmith]

Hmm, yes and no:

system:~ user$ which cd
/usr/bin/cd
syste:~ user$ ls -al /usr/bin/cd
-r-xr-xr-x 15 root wheel 156 Sep 23 2007 /usr/bin/cd
system:~ user$ file /usr/bin/cd /usr/bin/cd: Bourne shell script text executable
system:~ user$ cat /usr/bin/cd
#!/bin/sh
# $FreeBSD: src/usr.bin/alias/generic.sh,v 1.2 2005/10/24 22:32:19 cperciva Exp $
# This file is in the public domain.
builtin ${0##*/} ${1+"$@"}

Re:Fair enough

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's not. They use a triple license. The other two licenses are the GPL and LGPL. And not one of those three licenses applies to the logo, which is All Rights Reserved. It's pretty much the only thing that lets them legally force distributors of Firefox (with the logo) show the EULA. Trademark law would never give them that power, were the logo to be also under the MPL/GPL/LGPL, as trademarks are there to prevent fraud and consumer confusion, not to stroke the egos of Mozilla's Netscape-era lawyers.

Re:Fair enough

[Keeper Of Keys]

They're doing it again. Isn't it about time we had a Free browser?

Konqueror?

Re:Fair enough

[FooBarWidget]

http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=955417&cid=24900585
and
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=654289&cid=24708317

Re:Fair enough

[FooBarWidget]

I suggested Linux because she's getting 10 new spyware every day. Last time I tried to clean up her Windows install, I gave up after a few minutes. But she'd rather live with all the spyware and a computer that takes 10 minutes to boot (even though she complains about it) than to use an OS that looks different.

Re:Fair enough

[FooBarWidget]

"No, OSS won't succeed on the desktop until the project leads stop thinking that everyone's computer-literate and start catering to the lowest common denominator when it comes to usage experience."

GNOME does this and tries its damn hard to cater to the computer illiterate. Yet it is exactly this that the Slashdot/Reddit/OSNews/etc community criticizes GNOME for.

Re:Fair enough

[BlackCreek]

Yes, but one could say these are all infrastructure software, as opposed to Firefox being a "end user software"; and that users of infrastructure packages will normally know what they are doing to a MUCH higher extent than end users.

How many people (not in IT) know what Firefox stands for? How many people (who are not into IT) know what Xen, MySql and Zope are?

Re:Fair enough

[JohnFluxx]

I'm not an Ubuntu developer, but I do go to the Ubuntu development conferences. I assure you that free software is a huge deal. The non-free-drivers-by-default was discussed and debated for a long time - it was not an easy decision. It was considered that it had to be done, because of no choice.
If Firefox was closed source, it would most definitely not be included, since there are alternatives. If for some reason all the other web browser disappeared somehow, there were no alternatives at all, then I suppose firefox would be included. But it would have to be only when there are no other choices.

Re:Fair enough

[Anonymous Coward]

[citation needed]

Re:Fair enough

[Ornedan]

(The GNU folks will argue, approximately, "well, if you didn't accept the license, then you must be infringing the copyright of the software." That's correct, so far as it goes. But, there are other ways to get permission to run, such as Section 117 of the copyright act (in the US) or just an implied license. It's possible to argue "Well, you gave it to me without telling me you were licensing it under the GPL. Why should the GPL apply at all instead of the default set of rules for when this happens?")

Could you please at least read the GPL before talking about it? It quite specifically states that you don't need to agree to it to run the software covered by it.

Re:Fair enough

[Bert64]

Absolutely, a computer is a tool that should do exactly what the user tells it to...

* It should not second guess the user
* It should not disobey the user's instructions,
* It should not bother the user with unimportant information,
* It should not demand the users attention (focus grabbing) but rather wait until the user chooses to read whatever information it has to display.

Re:Fair enough

[Goodgerster]

It's the same software, you crouton, with the string "Firefox" stripped out of the UI and with different graphics files. Even the binary is still called firefox-bin, ffs...

Re:Fair enough

[msormune]

What do you think GPL is from a user's point of view?

Re:Fair enough

[moronoxyd]

"By bothering the end user with something they don't particularly care about they are probably actually devaluing their brand through the very actions that are seeking to protect it."

Are you aware that users of Firefox outside the Linux world have to read and accept the EULA?

The Firefox users in general don't have a problem with that, it's some part of the Linux Firefox users that can't accept that not everything lin life is free.

Re:Fair enough

[Eskarel]

Yes, but we're not talking about the fact that the linux people will use IE, we're talking about someone who boots up something like Ubuntu, tries to surf the web and it doesn't work.

Or someone who hears about someone who did the same thing.

Mozilla's reputation is more than just it's linux version, it's all versions.

Re:Fair enough

[MBGMorden]

If it was the same software, then there would be no harm in installing it. If they choose to make the distinction non-trivial enough to replace the artwork and effectively fork it, then they ought not assume that I myself will then trivialize the distinction and let them choose for me.

IceWeasel and Firefox ARE different packages, even if slightly. If I request one instead of the other, I expect my computer to obey my request.

Re:Fair enough

[molo]

Thats exactly what debian does already, it has a firefox stub package that installs iceweasel:

> apt-cache show firefox | grep ^Depends
Depends: iceweasel (>= 2.0.0.16-0etch1), iceweasel (<< 2.0.0.16-0etch1.1~)

> apt-cache show firefox
[...]
Description: Transition package for iceweasel rename
  Package to ease upgrading from older firefox packages to the new
  iceweasel package.
  .
  This package can be purged at anytime once the iceweasel package has
  been installed.

-molo

Re:Fair enough

[MBGMorden]

Interesting to not, though actions like that are one of the reasons I don't use Debian. I'm fine with the ideals behind open source (and think that FOSS is a good thing), but I can't stand to use a distribution where it's take to the level of religious zealotry.

Re:Fair enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you rather have it (1) spit out an error message that firefox is unknown, or (2) say that "firefox" is a virtual packet, and its functions are provided by "iceweasel", (3) install an empty firefox package that merely recommends that you add iceweasel, or (4) just install iceweasel?

Re:Fair enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but they are crazy people.

Re:Fair enough

[cfulmer]

Ok. I over-spoke. I have certainly read the GPL. You're referring to is a serious inconsistency in the GPL -- it says "you don't need to agree," but then it goes on to specify terms (Sec 15-17 of GPLv3) that the *user* has to agree to in order to be enforceable against the user (at least under US law).

So, I'm a user, I get to reject the GPL and still use the software. If the software, say, erases all a user's data and the user sues the author, this is about the exchange that could happen in court:

Author: "Judge, I distributed the software under the GPL, which limits my liability. Please toss this case out."

User: "Judge, I did not accept the GPL and I especially did not accept any limit on Author's liability. Furthermore, the GPL says that I don't have to accept the GPL to be able to run the software."

Judge: "User, you're right. Author, pay the man."

(There are other plausible scenarios. But, nothing in the GPL precludes this one.)

Don't get me wrong -- the basic idea behind the GPL is great. I just think that the GPL itself is not well-drafted.

Re:Fair enough

[KaizerttheBjorn]

No, Linux is not a trademark. The Linux kernel is freely distributed and is not associated with any business. A trademark is a name used by a business to distinguish their product that has protection under copyright law. e.g. Windows Vista is a trademark of Microsoft, no one can use the name Windows Vista to describe a product that they are selling because that name has protection under copyright law.

Re:Fair enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Chances are cd will not run /bin/cd, but rater the shell's builtin command. Unless you're some kind of idiot who has it aliased.

Re:Fair enough

[MBGMorden]

1 and 2 are acceptable. 3 I could live with but doesn't make much sense. 4 is absolutely unacceptable and would result in me immediately pulling Ubuntu from my system (well, I actually use LinuxMint anyways, but it's based on Ubuntu and the same applies to it).

Re:Fair enough

[molo]

Its the same package except for the branding, plus security fixes. Mozilla is the one that came to them and said they had issues with their use of the name and logo with modified versions (security fixes). Doing it the Mozilla way would not allow Debian to backport fixes to older versions, as Mozilla wouldn't allow their logo to be applied except to source-equivalent builds. That is why we have iceweasel now.

This is far from zealotry, it was the only option left to them by Mozilla without making an exception to what it means to have a stable release.

-molo

Re:Fair enough

[amorsen]

the iPhone is much more open then a typical phone that doesn't run user created apps.

Practically all phones run user created apps these days. The ones that don't generaly don't run apps at all.

Re:Fair enough

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

I agree wholeheartedly.

A computer "deciding" to do something makes me want to grab the power cord and then we'll see who is in control!

Those 4 points you made should be part of any UI design criteria (Windows fails on all 4 btw).

Re:Fair enough

[Danny Rathjens]

So you refuse to use all the distros that symlink /bin/sh to /bin/bash? ;) Good luck with that.
BTW, debian's default browser is epiphany - not iceweasel.

Re:Fair enough

[Mad Merlin]

No, Linux is not a trademark.

Says you. But I'll believe kernel.org:

$ curl -s kernel.org | grep Trademark
Linux is a Registered Trademark of Linus Torvalds.<br />

Re:Fair enough

[mysidia]

No, as has been noted, it's the same software application. Keyword assistance happens all the time. Replacing less-free things with more free alternatives and hiding the difference from the user as well as possible IS what Linux distros are all about. The user will be informed, to the extent that they read, but there is no need to avoid helping the user based on the theory they may be an uncommon case (and actually specifically desire iceweasel to _not_ be on their system)

There is nothing exceptional about the java case. Or else.. or how come when I choose to install the "X Window system" I wind up with a re-implementation (X.org)? How come when I install the 'tar' package, this 'tar' command executes this GNU lookalike instead of the true UNIX tar???

When I type "/usr/sbin/sendmail" the installed MTA (postfix, for example) runs instead of sendmail!

No. GNU did NOT invent tar, they made a free clone and distros have given it the same name: there's some precedent for you. And what about traditional UNIX Make? Well.. GNU came with a clone called "GNU Make" and distros have taken it up. Nowadays "apt-get install make" installs a clone, not the original make package.

Surely "/bin/sh" should be the true bourne shell and not the "Bourne Again" shell! How come 'apt-get install zip unzip' does not give me PKware's PKZIP / unzip??

There are thousands of examples like this. And while nowadays there is no expectation that "tar" should be a certain program or "libc" should be a certain implementation of the C library; it is only so, due to how successful the clones have been.

No usurpation occurs, and it's still up to the user whether to use the vendor-supplied package or seek something else.

The common case will be user wants whatever implementation of Firefox/Mozilla is available, regardless of whether the version has special labelling or not.

Distros need not cater to the uncommon case. When meaningless input is entered, the tools should do their best to discern the true intention and provide this option to the user. Not send them error messages and expect them to waste time trying to figure it out.

Re:Fair enough

[FishWithAHammer]

The Ubuntu Firefox build is not distributed by official channels, though; Ubuntu patches it before release. This is a critical thing to remember.

Re:Fair enough

[FishWithAHammer]

It's the look of it that pissed me off. Once I installed OldBar, everything was fine.

Re:Fair enough

[dotancohen]

Combine that with pointless EULAs, and non-free artwork, and you have a project that doesn't measure up as FOSS.

That's it! I'm switching to Opera!

So what?

[larry bagina]

If it bothers you, use Ice Weasel or compile it yourself without the EULA.

Re:So what?

[steelmaverick]

Thing is, does the average user know how to compile their own software, and secondly, why should they have to?

Re:So what?

[larry bagina]

The average users doesn't use linux. The average user doesn't care if they click a EULA before running firefox.

Re:So what?

[morgan_greywolf]

Are you trolling or what?

Ubuntu is a distro aimed at the 'average user'. Most of their design decisions revolve around the question "What would be best for the average user?"

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Thing is, does the average user know how to compile their own software, and secondly, why should they have to?

Apparently you didn't understand the post to which you replied.

The first option was "use Ice Weasel". No compiling needed. It's a binary built from the Firefox source, just without the trademarked logo and name. Trivial for an end user to install, and contains no EULA.

Re:So what?

[ozphx]

Why the hell would the 'average user' care about an EULA?

Besides, Mozillas design decisions revolve around 'What would be best for Google?'. Quite rightly too, its not like 'the community' is paying the bills. They're just for free advertising and crap skins.

Re:So what?

[Swampash]

The moment Chrome is released for Linux everyone's gonna drop Firefox anyway.

Re:So what?

[lattyware]

Why the heck does anyone even like chrome? It's got no features above any other browser. I'd rather use Epiphany or whatever.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be so dumb to say that. :-)

I can show you plenty of those very same "average" people who have just switched to Ubuntu or some other Linux distribution. Average users today DO use Linux. Heck, you use Linux if you own an ADSL router as well. Many don't even realize, but it's also in your phone.

"So what?" Well, STFU. :-)

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

The average user didn't care if Bush got re-elected. The average German in 1933 was happy to tick the Hitler box on the ballot. The average user doesn't care if they click a EULA... whatever it says.

Some people never learn. They certainly aren't worth modelling our own behaviour on.

Re:So what?

[krazytekn0]

What a line of logic...

EULA for firefox -- annoying one time occurrence.
I don't like clicking "I Agree", too much of a hassle for a free OS
Hmm, what's less of a hassle than clicking "I agree" once per install?...
...thinking...
I KNOW, uninstalling, downloading a package, modifying package to not require me to click "I agree" once, and recompiling application!
WAY EASIER! So glad I didn't click "I agree"

EULAs seem at odds with...

[blind biker]

...genuinely open source software. I don't care so much about the strictly legalistic side of the issue (though the enforceability of EULAs is certainly an interesting topic) as much as the very spirit of free and open source software.

Re:EULAs seem at odds with...

[Anonymous Coward]

The EULA covers others things/features too, such as allowing Mozilla to check whether the site is a known malware site or not.

Without an EULA/something allowing Mozilla to do that, I would assume the privacy advocates/lawyers would be up in arms about.

Maybe Ubuntu could follow the Fedora lead (again) - Fedora 9, upon the first launch of Firefox 3 displayed a page informing of the features that required permission and a simple request that if the user disagreed, go into settings and turn them off...

Re:EULAs seem at odds with...

[Anonymous Coward]

EULAs seem at odds with genuinely open source software.

And yet when I install "genuinely open source software," I'm often presented with the GPL and asked if I agree to the terms of it before I'm allowed to use the program for the first time.

Re:EULAs seem at odds with...

[devman]

Your point doesn't make any sense. Firefox is still FOSS the source is released under a FOSS License. EULA is about END-USERS not downstream developers. It is still genuinely open-source as any other open source is. Licensing of the code itself and licensing of the binaries are two separate realms.

Re:EULAs seem at odds with...

[temcat]

...and wrongly so, because GPL doesn't cover use, just distribution.

Re:EULAs seem at odds with...

[Anonymous Coward]

Name a piece of software that is licensed under the GPL that does what you describe.

Re:EULAs seem at odds with...

[SLi]

Gimp. And too many others.

Re:EULAs seem at odds with...

[Waffle Iron]

The software authors who pop up license dialogs may just be reacting to section 2c of the GPL:

If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to print an announcement.)

The first thing to come to mind to a lot of developers would be to toss the usual "I Agree" button on the bottom of the dialog.

Re:EULAs seem at odds with...

[SLi]

No, they are not. From the Open Source Definition:

The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form.

No program that disallows distribution of compiled binaries is open source.

OTOH trademarks are a different beast, and demanding that you not call the modified program Firefox doesn't make it non-free (but there are other things in Firefox that do).

Re:EULAs seem at odds with...

[devman]

It does allow distribution of the binaries, the license clearly allows you to compile and distribute them, thus it is still FOSS.

Re:EULAs seem at odds with...

[Chuck Chunder]

..and wrongly so, because GPL doesn't cover use, just distribution.

Well, in certain cases (see GPL 2 section 2c) displaying information about copyrights and licensing to end users is required by the GPL 2.

However there is no requirement to make an end user "agree" to the licence. Anyone who displays the information in that way is probably just copying what they are used to seeing from the proprietary world.

Re:EULAs seem at odds with...

[blind biker]

I don't care so much about the strictly legalistic side of the issue (though the enforceability of EULAs is certainly an interesting topic) as much as the very spirit of free and open source software.

Re:EULAs seem at odds with...

[cfulmer]

From the GPL (version 3):

"In no event . . . will any copyright holder . . . be liable to you for damages arising out of the use or inability to use the program . . ."

That's Section 16. If that doesn't cover use, I don't know what does.

The really interesting parts of the GPL are intended to apply only to distributions, which is why it's called a "distribution license." But, it has a few end-user parts in there as well. (See Section 15 also.)

Re:EULAs seem at odds with...

[mr_matticus]

If it didn't cover use, you wouldn't be able to use it. All the warranty and liability sections and everything else applies to use just as much as it does to distribution.

GPL'd software is copyrighted software. You do not have the right to possess, perform, reproduce, modify, distribute, or display copyrighted works without acquiring such rights from the copyright holder. The GPL is what gives you those rights and so it by definition must cover use. That it imposes no particular restrictions or requirements (beyond your acceptance of no owner liability and no warranty of any kind) is in itself significant.

Re:EULAs seem at odds with...

[Purple Screws]

Wrong. USC title 17, section 117(a):

(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.--Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.

In other words, regardless of what commercial software companies might like you to believe, using a program does not require a copyright license.

Re:EULAs seem at odds with...

[mr_matticus]

Oh, you tickle me so. 17 USC is a copyright license; it establishes conditions under which a copyright holder cannot sue--in other words, statutory license.

Further, 17 USC 117(a) doesn't establish legal possession of a copy or a license of copyright, but only that one who already HAS legal possession is not guilty of infringement by copying it into RAM. It has no bearing on whether you have permission to use the work in the first place, which is the issue here.

This addition was a direct response to court decisions holding that software could not be copied to and from memory under the default statutory scheme. It was passed in the early 80s, when computers were new and judges uncertain where the future was heading.

Re:EULAs seem at odds with...

[temcat]

Wrong. Here are the relevant snippets from ther license itself.

GPL v.2, section 0: "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope."

GPL v.3, section 9: "You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program."

More fragmentation is definitely not what we need

[k1980pc]

I thought MPL was more of a developer's license than an EULA. I don't remember having accepted any EULA for firefox on mac or windows. Or maybe there should be one license to rule them all.

why does it matter?

[steelmaverick]

I honestly think that this won't make any difference. Personally, I think this is just Mozilla being picky, what would it matter whether or not the EULA is shown during installation, no one is going to read it anyway. Besides, anyone that actually cared about FF3's EULA would read it themselves.

Re:why does it matter?

[mrmeval]

Mozilla can shit in their product as is their right. I don't have to eat it.

Re:why does it matter?

[grumbel]

would it matter whether or not the EULA is shown during installation, no one is going to read it anyway.

Well, thats the point. Why should there be a useless EULA to waste my time when instead the browser could "just work"? EULA are one of the major annoyances under Windows, there is no reason why we should have them on a OS based on Free Software.

Re:why does it matter?

[steelmaverick]

Touche.

Re:why does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

It sounds just like classic arse covering. At the university where I work, every student into my department is given a copy of the IT AUP, which they must sign and return before I give them their username.

You know they don't read it. They know they don't read it. I know they don't read it. But this way, when they inevitably do break the rules, I can take appropriate action backed up by the fact they signed their acceptance of said rules. If they didn't read them then that's their lookout, they should have used a little bit of common sense.

If someone does start making modified Firefox builds available (a lot of people used to make their own nightly builds with various tweaks, optimised for different CPU families, etc) and infringing on Mozilla's trademarked name then this way Mozilla can try and do something about it, if there's reasonable evidence that the person providing the build has read and accepted the EULA. There's probably no need to show it to every user, but it's easier than trying to find those users who are likely to provide builds.

Too corporate

[A beautiful mind]

I wonder what further bad will come out of Mozilla being too corporate. It starts to look like an elegant way of getting a paycheck and less like about making a good browser.

It is inconcievable that Mozilla would face any legal problems due to a lack of EULA.

Re:Too corporate

[steelmaverick]

I agree, Mozilla being too corporate would hurt their reputation and spirit of FOSS. They should just let it slide, not like displaying an EULA is actually going to make any difference.

Re:Too corporate

[Anonymous Coward]

You're, of course, 100% correct but then I would think you might complain, to Mozilla no doubt, when someone decides to release their version of Firefox that just so happens to have malware compiled in it. Someone would definitely sue Mozilla for "not protecting them from this atrocity and breach of trust" and Mozilla's going to respond with "our hands were tied by some asshats who think a EULA is the end of the fucking world for open source".

Seriously, you need to look past your nose to see the full picture.

Re:Too corporate

[BitZtream]

Do you think they should give us all this software, dedicate all their hours of time, spend their own money for development hardware and testing and various bits that go along with making a software package ...

And not get paid? Because you don't like 'The Man' should they not be allowed to eat as well?

A lawn mower company was sued and lost because some rednecks tried to pick up a running lawn mower and trim hedges with it. Now the lawn mowers have a label on them that tells you not to put your hands under it and all that junk. McDonalds was sued and lost because a lady spilled hot coffee on herself because she was driving around and it was 'too hot'.

There are MANY cases of companies getting sued because some stupid person that has no right to continue contaminating our gene pool hired a lawyer.

Until we solve the problem of allowing idiots to sue others for their own ignorance, we'll continue to need EULAs for any software made by a company thats big enough to be a worthwhile target for a lawyer. Thats just the reality of it.

Re:Too corporate

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

It's doubtful someone would sue "Mozilla" (whoever that is; perhaps you mean Mozilla Corp? Mozilla Foundation?) over something not supplied by them. If anyone did do that, the response would probably be something simple like "It's nothing to do with us, go away", followed by some sort of legal counter-claim if necessary, rather than the nonsense posted by the parent.

Why on earth would any of the organisations behind Firefox be responsible for malware, just because someone chose to call it Firefox? Is your bank responsible for your loss if you fall for a phishing attack, just because someone in eastern Europe sent you an e-mail with the bank's logo on it? If I write a check and sign your name, do you have to pay it? Of course not.

Re:Too corporate

[powerspike]

the EULA is to protect their trademark, if they don't, they would lose it, you wouldn't want microsoft brading MSIE9 firefox 4 would you???

Re:Too corporate

[Eil]

I wonder what further bad will come out of Mozilla being too corporate. It starts to look like an elegant way of getting a paycheck and less like about making a good browser.

This is a good point. Many people laud Firefox as being the free, wonderful, open-source browser built by the community with the community's needs in mind, etc, etc. They fail to realize (or perhaps don't want to realize) that mozilla.com is a for-profit taxable corporation just like any other company out there.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing that companies are embracing open source and using it as a business model. I just want people to be aware that Firefox is a business model, not some open source wet dream come to life.

Re:Too corporate

[westlake]

I wonder what further bad will come out of Mozilla being too corporate. It starts to look like an elegant way of getting a paycheck and less like about making a good browser.
.

The Moz Foundation has been corporate from Day 1, beginning with an infusion of cash from AOL in 2003. In 2006 about 85% of its revenues came from its contract with Google - a hefty $57 million. Mozilla Foundation

Re:Too corporate

[rpetre]

Do you think they should give us all this software, dedicate all their hours of time, spend their own money for development hardware and testing and various bits that go along with making a software package ...

And not get paid?

Well, yes, if they claim the product to be free software.

You see, most of the development and testing man-hours were not paid by them, were donated by members of the community, in exchange for the promise that the end-product would be freely shared as well. I'm not a lawyer, but the way I understand free software licences, it works like this: the founder of the project chooses one (or more) licenses for it and then invites people to contribute, basically saying "It's ok to send me your work, see, there are some restrictions on what I or someone else does with it". At least that's what I have in mind when sending bugs or patches to different OSS projects, no matter who leads them.

So while I agree with the second part, that manufacturers should not be held liable for the stupidity of their users, I'm pretty sure that a openness promise should be respected, meaning that money/work ratio should be propagated across the whole chain, not just "the last mile".

In even simpler words: just as well as you should be allowed to sell your own work, you shouldn't try to sell what you got for free.

Don't nitpick, please, I'm not a lawyer and not a native speaker, so there might be some detail lost in translation, I hope I got my point across.

Re:Too corporate

[Anonymous Coward]

the EULA is to protect their trademark, if they don't, they would lose it, you wouldn't want microsoft brading MSIE9 firefox 4 would you???

They could issue a license, to use the trademark. Anyway, I'd love Microsoft to use Firefox almost as much as I'd love to see people use both cases of letters. What's wrong with doing the right thing???

Re:Too corporate

[Al Dimond]

1. Displaying a EULA is not sufficient to stop trademark infringement in practice. In fact, it makes no difference at all.

2. Displaying a EULA is not necessary to defend a trademark. At least according to other trademarked programs that defend their trademarks and don't display EULAs. What they need to do to defend their mark is sue others that try to use it improperly. They've sure as shit done that, protecting us all from those malicious bastards at Debian backporting security fixes.

3. It's important that Free Software projects act in ways that can be universalized. Especially big, important projects like Mozilla. You know what happened with the BSD license's advertising clause. It became untenable, as every contributor to the total system had to be mentioned in advertising, and eventually was removed from the license. Free Software is a big ecosystem and if every project started acting like Mozilla we'd have big problems.

Fortunately, there's a great equalizer: the source. XFree got forked, and Mozilla can be forked, too. It would take more effort because Mozilla has money and deals with Google and stuff (how long before we realize that was a mistake?). At the very least, it's always easy to keep up a cheap parallel version with no non-Free stuff until the marketing influence in Mozilla really drives it to Hell (not just their own marketing, but their deals with Google and the influence of web designers in general, whose interests, to say the least, only occasionally align with users').

Re:Too corporate

[BitZtream]

The product is freely shared. You are more than welcome to get the source code and use it, which is what those people provided.

You are not however allowed to use thier propritary portions of it, which those other people didn't contribute, and Mozilla paid for itself.

You see, if you want to use the open portion that was created by the community there is nothing stopping you. What you are asking to use is portions that weren't provided by the community, in which case, you have to agree with their terms.

Re:Too corporate

[rpetre]

Agreed, but this is different from the attitude of "poor them, all that work without getting paid".

Also, most OSS licenses have restrictions on the kind of bundling one can do between free and non-free components, so they need to be really careful to fully own what they're trying to sell, otherwise there might be a lot of other people entitled to a place at that table.

I'm not saying Mozilla is incorrect in this, I was just making a point regarding your pretty broad statement. Also I'm a happy Iceweasel user for about two years, I am interested in this only because it might redraw the fine line between proprietary and OSS interests.

Re:Too corporate

[Rich0]

And how does having an EULA prevent this? Is that really going to stop somebody from distributing a version of Firefox with malware in it when they aren't stoped by the already-binding license file and numerous laws that make distribution of malware illegal in the first place?

It is illegal to distribute firefox without a license. That license is conferred by the license file. The EULA really doesn't matter much - in fact you never need to accept it to create and distribute some malware (since you don't need to run it to do that).

EULAs are fairly silly from a legal perspective - they don't actually license you to do anything. A license is used to give somebody permission to do something they couldn't already do. For example, copyright law forbids people in general from distributing creative works. A license like the GPL or MPL gives you persmission to do this anyway under particular circumstances. They're just as binding in files as they are on-screen - since you need to accept some kind of license to distribute the files at all (except under fair use). EULAs aren't targeted at distributors - they're targeted at users. However, users don't actually need a license to do anything at all, since no law forbids people from using software they have in their possession.

back to the old days...

[800DeadCCs]

Well, I guess it's back to waiting until I've got a half dozen beers or so in me before starting an install.

kung-fu: drunken install master!

(although, you do end up with some odd games when you do that.)

Well, at least the options are there!

[compumike]

In any negotiation, it's important to think about one's alternatives. At least in the open source case, there's a good alternative -- recompiling without the restrictive / undesirable parts. Sure, branding power will suffer, but this community in particular will understand.

Ever heard of BATNA?

--
Hey code monkey, learn electronics! Powerful microcontroller kits for the digital generation.

Re:Well, at least the options are there!

[Anonymous Coward]

AHHHHH,

I repressed that torture of an International Negotiation course. Thanks for bring back those horrible horrible memories.

Unless of course you were that cute, tall, blonde, brilliant british lady who took the course with me and I never had the occasion to ask out. In that case, call me!

I don't think she was called mike though ...

Broken link in summary

[Anonymous Coward]

The iceweasel link should be http://packages.debian.org/sid/iceweasel

Re:Broken link in summary

[TRS-80]

I submitted it as http://packages.debian.org/iceweasel without a / at the end, which does work, I don't know why it got changed.

Re:More fragmentation is definitely not what we ne

[Mad Merlin]

The EULA is a new thing with Firefox 3 it seems.

EULA is quite important

[Zurtex]

The Firefox EULA outlines some quite important issues, not least of which is that it doesn't ship with a warranty. But what might be quite concerning to some, and is made clearish in the EULA, is that Firefox by default sends data to whatever 3rd party (Google) runs their anti-phishing. It's all to do with storing partial hashes rather than website addresses on the computer and in theory the 3rd party can't do anything useful with it and are legally required to not keep it. But some people still might find this quite concerning. More information on how Mozilla tries to make the data sent useless here: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=419117

Re:EULA is quite important

[42forty-two42]

The 'no warranty' issue could be shown during ubuntu's installation as a whole, as it applies to everything in ubuntu. As for sending data to google - it shouldn't present this as a eula; it should present it as a very clear /option/ at the first run; just like IE7 does.

Re:EULA is quite important

[Anonymous Coward]

Have to wonder if these issues with Mozilla is related to Canonical's plans to hire more developers. It would be nice if one of the projects was to take Iceweasel or another browser and make it more acceptable to the community then the directions some facets of Mozilla and Google's browser has taken recently.

Re:EULA is quite important

[Mr.Ned]

"The Firefox EULA outlines some quite important issues, not least of which is that it doesn't ship with a warranty."

Why is Firefox so special or important that it makes me confirm a EULA? And why, after these several decades since the Free Software Movement started, has no other major piece of free software done something similar? It's not like the Free Software Foundation is still working out the basics of licensing or anything.

I have 1,804 packages installed on my Debian system. I don't know _any_ of those packages that don't disclaim warranty to the maximum extent provided by law. It's in /usr/share/doc/packagename/copyright, for me to read as I please. Since it's Debian, and I get software from main, I know that anything I get from there places no restrictions on my use of the software, and that I only need to check it if I intend on modifying or distributing the software.

I'm glad Debian did away with Firefox and provides a free, rebranded version so I don't have to put up with that crap.

Re:EULA is quite important

[Zurtex]

If you have a clear alternative option then why is it such an issue to you? Firefox is a brand and I have no problem with Mozilla controlling how software named under that is modified. If Mozilla thinks not displaying the EULA on first start up is an issue, then I don't see what the problem is. It also occurred to me, that they problem want to solidify their legal standing before they introduce the ability to play OGG/Theora without a plug-in.

Re:EULA is quite important

[pembo13]

They they can put that message next to the button to enable that feature.

Re:EULA is quite important

[Zurtex]

It's on by default because most users (yes, even Linux users) don't change default settings and it's a pretty non-intrusive protection system.

Re:EULA is quite important

[JohnFluxx]

So should the other 10,000 packages that are installed also display an EULA because of no warranty?

Re:EULA is quite important

[Zurtex]

I'd have no problem with their EULA showing up when you installed them, together with all the other packages being installed as long it was displayed sensibly as a long scroll down rather than clicking next 100 times. Or for that matter if they had a GUI front end that it be shown on first usage.

Re:EULA is quite important

[pembo13]

And isn't that feature off by default?

Re:EULA is quite important

[Zurtex]

No, the feature is on by default. The Firefox 3 anti-phishing system works quite different to the Firefox 2 one. Here's how it works:

1) Google sends and updates Firefox with a database of partial hashes.
2) If Firefox hits on one of these partial hashes with a website it queries Google for the full hash.
3) Firefox sends 4 other partial hashes out of the database so Google can't tell what websites specifically are being viewed.
4) Firefox takes the full hash and checks it against the website.
5) If it doesn't match: load website. If it does match: block website.

Re:EULA is quite important

[Anonymous Coward]

Ubuntu/Linux desperately needs an application that does the same job as Zone Alarm in the Windows World.

e.g. NO application should be able to send or receive data to the network before I, the all important user, have okayed it.

Until such an app is in place I'm sticking with Windows. I don't like Windows but I sure as hell like my privacy.

Re:More fragmentation is definitely not what we ne

[Qalthos]

I don't remember having accepted any EULA for firefox on mac or windows

You don't eh? Maybe you should check again
www.getfirefox.com

They being so difficult

[Lord Lode]

I wonder why they're being so difficult. Firefox already isn't called like that in my OS for over a year anymore, it's "Gran Paradisio", and firefox 2 was something else that I already forgot (and don't care what it was again either). What bothers me more is that the logo is an empty globe instead of the better looking one with the fox. But so again, I wonder why they're doing that, while this isn't a problem for most other software like gimp, pidgin, inkscape, audacious, openoffice.org, KDE, filezilla, and so on. I mean, what does mozilla do so different that they have this trademark problem and the others don't?

Re:They being so difficult

[Anonymous Coward]

Minefield.

Re:They being so difficult

[diegocgteleline.es]

They hired lawyers. Lawyers don't fix problems, they create them. Here's a good example...

Re:They being so difficult

[sdpope]

Gran Paradiso was the codename for Firefox 3, iirc. Not like Iceweasel at all.

Re:They being so difficult

[TeknoHog]

I've also used Minefield for a long time, without realizing that in Mozilla's case it means the legal kind.

Re:They being so difficult

[ozphx]

Mozilla runs a for-profit company (selling branded crap) as well as the non-profit Foundation. They have worked long and hard building up a legion of fanboys to the Firefox brand. The number of Firefox fans pretty much places a value on Mozilla corp as a whole - Google is happy to pay its $60m a year to own their online souls^W^W^W^W be their search provider - so thats an indication of how much the brand is worth.

The difference is that Mozilla is running a business, building and milking a community. I doubt theres another OSS product with a strong enough brand that would be worth protecting atm (or from someone with the foresight/intent of making a profit from their efforts).

Re:They being so difficult

[Randle_Revar]

>What bothers me more is that the logo is an empty globe instead of the better looking one with the fox.

The name Minefield and the different logo is to indicate that it is not an official release.

Re:They being so difficult

[darkmeridian]

Mozilla has the Firefox icon and image that it has a trademark in. The Mozilla Foundation wants to protect that mark; otherwise, any browser can decide to use the Firefox icon and dupe people into using it. Or someone can start their own Mozilla fork and use the icon. I can't tell you why the other programs don't display a EULA, but I can understand why the Mozilla Foundation would chose to do so.

Re:They being so difficult

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe Firefox is more popular than gimp, pidgin, inkscape, audacious, openoffice.org, KDE and filezila ... combined?

Plus it's a browser ... you know, the platform that could be used to deliver all sorts of mallware to users. It is not hard to imagine how someone could deliver a modified Firefox that offers you a "penis enlargement" every time you open a web page.

That said, I don't why Mozilla doesn't consider Debian and Ubuntu trustworthy.

Re:They being so difficult

[Anonymous Coward]

Gran Paradiso is the name for Firefox Alpha Release 1

Gran Paradiso Alpha 1 is an early developer milestone for the next major version of Firefox that is being built on top of the next generation of Mozilla's layout engine, Gecko 1.9. Gran Paradiso Alpha 1 is being made available for testing purposes only, and is intended for web application developers and our testing community. Current users of Mozilla Firefox should not use Gran Paradiso Alpha 1.

which will install automatically with certain Software Sources settings in Ubuntu if I recall correctly

Re:They being so difficult

[jurgen]

Actually, the chairperson of Mozilla's board of directors and formly CEO of Mozilla Corporation, Mitchell Baker, *is* a lawyer. I know Mitchell and I can attest that in spite of being a lawyer she's a decent human being, but, there you go.

Re:They being so difficult

[Russ Nelson]

Let me guess: you have NEVER spoken to a lawyer in your life.

Re:They being so difficult

[petermgreen]

Firefox already isn't called like that in my OS for over a year anymore, it's "Gran Paradisio", and firefox 2 was something else that I already forgot (and don't care what it was again either).
Maybe you don't care but using the release codename which changes with every major release is going to cause confusion. Maybe it's ok for gentoo but not for a distro that aims at a more general audiance. And as you say the icon isn't exactly brilliant either.

Debian decided (rightly imo) that given that they couldn't get the firefox name and logos under acceptable terms and given the difficiancy of using mozillas nightly/alpha branding mentioned above to use a completely new name and icons.

I mean, what does mozilla do so different that they have this trademark problem and the others don't?
They are controlled by a corporation that is paranoid about maintaining an iron fisted grip on the firefox brand in a way that goes totally against the spirit of free software.

Re:They being so difficult

[Zaiff Urgulbunger]

Problem is, you know the way the music industry tries to impose DRM on their customers in order to prevent piracy... and you know the way it makes absolutely *no difference*, since a pirate is the person who is going to have the resources to circumvent the DRM? Well, I kinda feel the same way about this EULA!

**Apologies to Mozilla for likening them to the music industry! I know they're not evil really, but this is kind of a slippery slope.... and from my point of view, the EULA is of no use to me and merely gets in my way. Albeit, I guess it's not a *huge* hardship for me, but I still resent it! ;)

Re:They being so difficult

[Anonymous Coward]

Gran Paradiso and Deer Park were the names of Firefox betas. The empty globe is the generic XUL icon. Mozilla wants their unstable versions to look different from the stable ones to warn people not to use them in production. With the nightlies they take it a notch further: Firefox nightlies are called Minefield, Thunderbird nightlies are called Shredder.

EULA Contents:

[nog_lorp]

EULA: http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/legal/eula/firefox-en.html

Summary:
Preamble - notice that the source is available and this license does not apply to the source.
1. License Grant - This license gives you the right to use the executable provided by Mozilla Corp.
2. Termination - if you breach this license, S1 is voided.
3. Proprietary Rights - again, the source code is not proprietary. The branding logos are, you don't have the right to modify them.
4. Disclaimer of Warranty
5. Limitation of Liability
6. Export Controls - you must comply with teh law.
7. US Govt End Users - 2 sentences of legal references related to employees of the US Govt using Firefox.
8. Misc, nothing interesting at all. This agreement constitutes the agreement...

Sounds like Mozilla Corp doing the bare minimum to cover their asses, in a responsible fashion, without actually affecting end users at all.

Re:EULA Contents:

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should Mozilla care about the EULA on Ubuntu, as Ubuntu is responsible for the kind of damage caused by software they compile, package, configure and provide to users?

Re:EULA Contents:

[nightfire-unique]

1. License Grant - This license gives you the right to use the executable provided by Mozilla Corp.

Once one legally acquires software, one is legally allowed to use it as per the terms of copyright laws in most countries. Permission from the vendor is not required.

2. Termination - if you breach this license, S1 is voided.

This is not a right the vendor is legally able to extend under the copyright act. If the vendor seeks this right, they must engage in a legally binding contract with the recipient prior to sale or transmission.

3. Proprietary Rights - again, the source code is not proprietary. The branding logos are, you don't have the right to modify them.

Great. This covers not use or modification, but rather distribution of modified logos. Copyright law does not prohibit modification of private property. It prohibits redistribution without vendor approval. This does not need to be in an EULA, but should be included in a redistribution LICENSE file.

4. Disclaimer of Warranty

Legit. 5. Limitation of Liability

Semi-legit. One cannot disclaim all liability in most countries. If the software contains code which intentionally causes code to launch a DDOS attack, they can and will be held liable, regardless of any "contract" they believe people "signed." But certainly this term is understandable. Still does not need to be in an EULA.

6. Export Controls - you must comply with teh law.

Offensive. Why do I as a non-American care about American export laws? Why should I feel compelled to click "I agree" to something I disagree with?

7. US Govt End Users - 2 sentences of legal references related to employees of the US Govt using Firefox.

Whatever.

8. Misc, nothing interesting at all. This agreement constitutes the agreement...

Again... waste of time.

I want to stress that I am not suggesting Mozilla doesn't have the right to include this EULA and demand it be included in *nix distros. They do have that right. I think it's silly, but it's their logos and their binary.

However, in my opinion, I side with the Debian leadership (and others who have followed suit) in forking to avoid this nonsense. Lack of annoying and insulting EULAs is a trademark of a good Linux distro. After coming this far, why would we of the free software movement back down on our principles for some silly logos?

I believe distro leaders should choose to fork rather than foist this nonsense on their users.

Re:EULA Contents:

[orkysoft]

Can't they just put that stuff inside the Help menu, near the About Firefox item?

Also, why the need for this EULA at all? Free Software isn't supposed to need a EULA. The legal text (in the Help menu) should just need to mention the OSI-approved licence it is distributed under, plus the trademark status and possibly restrictive licence of the artwork.

Re:EULA Contents:

[John Hasler]

> 6. Export Controls - you must comply with teh law.

> Offensive. Why do I as a non-American care about American export laws?

This is completely irrelevant to those not resident in the US and completely superfluous to those who are. It could be replaced by a statement to the effect that it is illegal to do things that are illegal where you are doing them. I don't know where they get this crap: nothing in US law requires such a notice.

> Why should I feel compelled to click "I agree" to something I disagree with?

You disagree that it is illegal to export some things from the US to some destinations? In any case it has no effect on you as you are not in the US, any more than a statement warning me that it is illegal to "deny the holocaust" in France would affect me (there is also about as much point to it).

> However, in my opinion, I side with the Debian leadership (and others who have followed
> suit) in forking to avoid this nonsense. Lack of annoying and insulting EULAs is a
> trademark of a good Linux distro. After coming this far, why would we of the free
> software movement back down on our principles for some silly logos?

I agree, but I find tha matter more silly and sad than offensive.

Re:EULA Contents:

[nog_lorp]

All the points that may/may not apply based on location have notes to such affect, in particular the export controls section says "obey and import and export laws that apply".

EULA's are of dubious legality and generally annoying, but I still support Mozilla Corp.'s choice. In the US, such stupid things are necessary to protect your business. They need control of their logos to stop perverted malignant distributions coming out, and as long as they control their logos their branded products may be subject to inappropriate implied warranties and the like.

I think the wisest choice would be to have an EULA pop up, and have these buttons:
[Accept] [Skip*]
* Browser branding will be removed with this option.

Re:EULA Contents:

[Carlosos]

Can't they just put that stuff inside the Help menu, near the About Firefox item?

They can put the EULA in the Help menu but it wouldn't be a binding contract if they don't prompt for the EULA before using the software.

Re:EULA Contents:

[nog_lorp]

I think the point is that they do not want to be construed as responsible if someone violates export laws by distributing an executable branded as Mozilla Corp in an illegal manner. Not saying this is a totally legitimate concern though.

Re:EULA Contents:

[mr_matticus]

Once one legally acquires software, one is legally allowed to use it as per the terms of copyright laws in most countries. Permission from the vendor is not required.

You're begging the question. Permission from the vendor is required to "legally acquire" the software. If that permission is conditional, based on what they have decided to sell, then you're right back here.

*ALL* contracts cover things which are not present or required by statutory law. By definition, that is why they exist.

This is not a right the vendor is legally able to extend under the copyright act.

Citation needed. You won't find one.

The Copyright Act specifies what both customers and owners can't do. If it's not prohibited by the Act or independently barred by some other law, it's valid. This is why no court has ever--EVER--dismissed a case or claim based solely on the fact that it existed in the form of a license agreement.

they must engage in a legally binding contract with the recipient prior to sale or transmission.

You do not need to accept terms in order to buy a box. You can purchase or otherwise legally acquire a package without having intent to use it, whether as a gift or simply for its physical components or aesthetic appeal.

Only the user asserts any rights under copyright, and only the user must accept the conditions of that use. We just had, barely a few months ago, a grounded court decision on the Artistic License--that it was enforceable just as any other software license. You don't get one without the other.

Re:EULA Contents:

[Anonymous Coward]

So read the Ubuntu Legal page, and tell me how their "Legalese" is any different. Acceptance of their terms is implied by use, and aren't even presented to the user anywhere; you have to go looking for it. Enforcement would be difficult, but that's not the main issue, which is that there is an agreement on use for Ubuntu that you may not know about, which accepts the terms of any other software you use or install. Is that better or worse?

Re:EULA Contents:

[Anonymous Coward]

Its utterly useless, because;

A. ELUA's aren't enforceable

B. Its not saying anything different from existing laws, so a contract to detail these effects redundant. Its their trademark, its already not allowed for you to fuck with it under trade mark law.

Re:EULA Contents:

[stinerman]

1. License Grant - This license gives you the right to use the executable provided by Mozilla Corp.

Once one legally acquires software, one is legally allowed to use it as per the terms of copyright laws in most countries. Permission from the vendor is not required.

True. However if I legally acquire the binary it will display the EULA. If I agree to it, I've agreed to it. If I don't, then the program exits and won't run.

Now lets say I disassemble the binary and modify the program not to display the EULA and then run it. I've now violated the copyright by making a derivative work without permission**.

Do I have the right to use the derivative work now? I don't know because IANAL. It'd be interesting to hear about this corner case, but either way, you've got to violate the copyright to do it.

**Firefox is under the tri-license so who knows how this changes the story.

Re:EULA Contents:

[John Hasler]

> All the points that may/may not apply based on location have notes to such affect, in
> particular the export controls section says "obey and import and export laws that apply".

Why not have a section which says "obey laws that apply"? There are many that might, most of which are more likely to be enforced than the US encryption software export regulations. Why is there no section saying "Don't use Firefox to slander the Polish nation"?

> EULA's are of dubious legality and generally annoying, but I still support Mozilla
> Corp.'s choice. In the US, such stupid things are necessary to protect your business.

No. What they need to do to protect their trademark is file suit against businesses that infringe it. Nothing an end user does with the software can infringe the trademark. Getting her to agree to an EULA has nothing to do with trademarks.

> They need control of their logos to stop perverted malignant distributions coming out...

The only way to do that is to take legal action against unauthorized use of the trademark. End users are irrelevant to that.

> ...and as long as they control their logos their branded products may be subject to
> inappropriate implied warranties and the like.

If they didn't sell it they cannot have any warrantee obligations.

Re:EULA Contents:

[Rich0]

Creating a derivitive work is not prohibited by the copyright laws. DISTRIBUTING a derivative work is.

Copyright restricts the rights of individuals to distribute creative works. It has nothing to do with how individuals use those works when they aren't copying them. Copying for personal use is a gray area - it tends to fall under fair use.

Re:EULA Contents:

[rtaylor]

6. Export Controls - you must comply with teh law.
 
Offensive. Why do I as a non-American care about American export laws? Why should I feel compelled to click "I agree" to something I disagree with?

You don't care but the US government does care that Mozilla complies with US export controls. They comply by saying all of their users have agreed to comply.

Whole thing is boiler plate with a few extras to appease the US government when residents of North Korea, Cuba, etc. use the encryption package in Mozilla.

Move Mozilla Corp, and programmers in the sensitive bits, out of the US to Canada and these types of concerns disappear.

Re:EULA Contents:

[Anonymous Coward]

All the work Moz has put into making the arguably best browser evar and they dare ask you to agree to their EULA. -Sheesh...

Re:EULA Contents:

[Anonymous Coward]

I have no problem with Mozilla wanting to show users a EULA. That's understandable. What I do have a problem with is them making Ubuntu show that EULA.

News Flash: You're creating an executable. An executable is perfectly capable of displaying a EULA when it is first run and ensuring that the user agrees to that EULA. This is not rocket surgery.

In short, if you want to display a EULA, go ahead and do so. That gives me, the user, the choice to disagree with your EULA. But tying it to someone else's product means that I have to agree to your EULA to use their product. That's unacceptable.

I'd expect this of Microsoft or any large company. But Mozilla is supposed to be about free software. And this request goes against that spirit. It makes all of us who donated money so that they could take out those full-page advertisements feel like we were taken advantage of. It makes all of us who've contributed bug fixes and filed bugs wish we had never bothered. And, most importantly for them, it makes us never want to help them again.

Re:EULA Contents:

[Anonymous Coward]

Consider that this EULA does ship not only in the United States but wordlwide.

For example, courts in the EU (excluding GB ;-)) have quite unanimously ruled that the transmission respectively the change of ownership of the physical medium concludes the initial sales contract by which the install medium is obtained. With the sale already concluded ownership of the install medium lies already with the user, and no further acceptance of terms is required to do whatever one pleases with one property, except if the action violates the law (like redistribution without permission from the copyright holder).

Furthermore, an EULA constitues in this cases a separate contract with the owner of the IP, which by the way is not a party to the original sales contract, in which the copyright holder wishes to dictate additional terms and restrictions of the use of the software; since AFAIK all EU contries implemented a national equivalent to the first sale doctrine, this terms and restrictions are null and void.

Please note that EULAs which are presented and agreed to _before_ the install medium is obtained (through download or purchase of a physical medium) are of course valid parts of the sales contract and thus enforceable under national laws of the EU member states[1].

So for the Firefox EULA to be valid, it must be presented to the user before download of the Ubuntu Install medium commences, which is obviously not the case, causing the EULA to be null and void in most EU member states. Considering that this move has the potential to honk off a large part of the OS movement while also not beeing enforeceable in one of the largest continuos softwaremarkets, one can only wonder what the fking hell those Mozilla guys were thinking ...

[1] Except if you make your EULA extremely onesided, in which case at least when selling to private customers you will run afoul of customer protection laws and again have your EULA voided. Howdy, M$

Re:EULA Contents:

[Anonymous Coward]

Bravo, finally someone with some sense rather than outright bigtory which is the usual on /.. I myself do not live within the realm of the United States, so why should I adhere to a EULA which is completely based on US law. We live in a world society not a dictactorship so I would suggest that people either stick with their existing browser (weather it is IE, Safari etc) where we know excatly what we are getting (signing MS license or Apple license) or you guys can try some psuedo open source product (Firefox) which does not even adhere to its license and principles (eg. copy-left).

Re:EULA Contents:

[Anonymous Coward]

Although phrased as if the author of this comment knows something about the law, most of these points are either inaccurate or of the form "it doesn't matter to me, so why is it here?"

A non-exhaustive list of the problems with this comment:

1) This is a contract, not a copyright issue. While is is true that software providers may, if they so choose, decide to distribute code with nothing but copyright protection, this is almost never the case. For example, the GPL requires that redistributed and/or modified code contain attribution to the original author. In most countries (I'm not getting into the details of Berne here) attribution is not a right under copyright law. The right to use and right to terminate a license are perfectly valid things to pot in a contract, which brings me to point 2.

2) "Why should I be feel compelled to click 'I agree' to something I disagree with?"
Do you have a clue what "compelled" means? Is someone holding a gun to your head and threatening you with death if you don't accept a license agreement? IF YOU DON'T AGREE, JUST DON'T CLICK "I AGREE." That's how contracts work. There are a dozen other browsers out there. IF you want to use Firefox, which by the way is being provided to you for free, you have to agree.

3) Export control laws - As a non-American, you don't necessarily need to worry about them. However, Mozilla shouldn't have to draft separate EULAs for separate groups of people.

4) You say that the US Government users clause is "whatever." Right, unless of course you are Mozilla and care about your rights in your software, which without this clause are significantly affected.

5) "This agreement constitutes the agreement..." Again, just because you don't understand contract law (this is a merger clause for those of you following at home) doesn't mean it's useless. For the reason why, see point 6, below.

6) Limitation on liabilities - First, the EULA doesn't disclaim ALL liabilities. Second, this is perhaps the single most important clause in any goods contract (which is probably why it is specifically provided for in almost all free software licenses). Without this clause, if there is some bug in the software that, for example, causes some user to lose 2 hours of their work, that user can sue Mozilla. This is a trivial example, but the tort law point remains the same: This clause is needed to stop the totally moronic lawsuits.

I normally read about a dozen of these idiotic, totally-miscomprehended law posts on Slashdot every day, and just let them slide. For once I thought someone should point out that a discussion of the legal issues that goes deeper than "I don't think they need it, so its offensive that it's there" should be included.

None of this is to say that Ubuntu should continue to distribute Firefox. If they feel that this EULA is beyond what they want in their distribution, they can switch default browsers. That's their prerogative, just as it is yours to decline the EULA should they continue to include Firefox. You, Ubuntu, and Mozilla all have choice here. This isn't the government imposing some law on you.

Re:EULA Contents:

[Anonymous Coward]

Furthermore, an EULA constitues in this cases a separate contract with the owner of the IP, which by the way is not a party to the original sales contract, in which the copyright holder wishes to dictate additional terms and restrictions of the use of the software; since AFAIK all EU contries implemented a national equivalent to the first sale doctrine, this terms and restrictions are null and void.

This is not an accurate deconstruction of EU law or DFS. Those who purchase software, even in Europe, have a right to resell the software; as you've said, the parties to the sale are not the parties to the license, but you're failing to connect the dot that the consequence of this is that one does not control the other. Resale is a separate matter from the terms governing the use of that IP.

Just like in the United States, a properly presented and accepted license agreement is binding to the extent its provisions are not independently illegal. What does vary slightly are the circumstances that establish valid acceptance.

Re:EULA Contents:

[nog_lorp]

This post at the Software Freedom Law Center implies strongly the opposite is true: http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/foss-primer.html#x1-190003

Individual Liability

Developers working alone, apart from any corporate form, are not shielded from personal liability for project-related activities. If a developer takes donations or otherwise receives money for working on a solo project, the developer must report that compensation as personal income and pay income taxes on it. Likewise, all legal liability to third parties will fall to the developer. For example, the developer may be liable to users for breach of any express warranties made regarding the software, or any implied warranties that are not effectively disclaimed.

Re:EULA Contents:

[Dhalka226]

Yaknow. I don't agree with you making it into a big deal, but I was at least prepared to assume you had a reasonable point to make. Until this:

Offensive. Why do I as a non-American care about American export laws?

Now I know you're simply an asshat.

Seriously, give me a damn break. You're offended because a US-based company follows US law and notifies others under that jurisdiction that they're required to do the same? And just to prove your asshattery, here's what the license ACTUALLY says:

6. EXPORT CONTROLS. This license is subject to all applicable export restrictions. You must comply with all export and import laws and restrictions and regulations of any United States or foreign agency or authority relating to the Product and its use.

Hey gee! It's not even America-centric. Whodathunkit?

Why should I feel compelled to click "I agree" to something I disagree with?

Do you think anybody gives a shit if you agree with a law or not? They're notifying you of its potential to exist--definitely in the US, and potentially in other jurisdictions. Export AND import; you may not even have a legal right to PRESS that "I Agree" button where you live. If you have a problem with any such law pertaining to you, take it up with your government. Bitching about some company telling you about it just makes you look stupid.

Maybe some of your other points had some validity, but they're drowned out by the screaming idiocy of this one. I honestly don't even remember what they were, and it's clear you're one of those people who made up his mind long ago without any of the facts so there's no point in going back to review them anyway.

Next step for Mozilla Corp..

[eugeni]

...is to provide a "genuine firefox advantage" feature, that will check if your Firefox (tm) installation is genuine, and show a nasty transparent box in the corner of the screen...

Re:Next step for Mozilla Corp..

[Requiem18th]

Mod parent insightful please. Thanks.

Preaching to the choir, but

[nightfire-unique]

I myself find EULAs extremely offensive. I have no problem with a distribution license, particularly in light of the fact it's required by copyright law if one wishes to grant (re)distribution rights. But the idea of a license accompanying a piece of data which governs its use is not something I can, in good conscience, support.

I say fork. EULAs have no place in a Linux distribution. We have come so far as a community. Why back down on our principles now?

Re:Preaching to the choir, but

[IBBoard]

On the whole EULAs are used for bad, but looking at another post about the rough layout then please show me which part governs how you use it.

As an officially branded product all it basically does is say "Yes, we as a company made it. No you don't get a warranty, despite the corporate backing. Since there's no warranty we aren't liable for anything. The logos are not open-source, so you can't edit them." Sentence one doesn't apply to most OSS projects as they're not corporate backed and so don't need to worry about the implications as much. Two and three are often covered in the license document, but as a corporate entity then Mozilla obviously feel they need to be more up-front about the exact same stuff. Four is just a clarification of what you can and can't do if you take advantage of the open source part with regards the trademarks. No usage restrictions at all.

Re:Preaching to the choir, but

[devman]

Have you even read the EULA? Another poster summarized it already here Not to mention distribution licenses also sometimes cover use as well (i.e. Creative-Commons)

Re:Preaching to the choir, but

[nightfire-unique]

But there is a usage restriction. If you don't click "I agree," the software exits.

There's nothing wrong with including a WARRANTY or LICENSE file along with it. Asking the user to click some button is offensive. It suggests a contractual agreement where one does not legally exist (YMMV depending on jurisdiction).

Re:Preaching to the choir, but

[IBBoard]

No, there's nothing wrong with including those files. Try finding a corporation with lawyers that think "two files in some system folder (probably /usr/share/firefox) that people are highly unlikely to look in" is sufficient for the warranty and liability disclaimer, though. By putting it up-front as well as in the files the lawyers are happy and everyone else can just ignore it and click through because they're mainly canned text anyway and we're sick of "it might not do anything, it might be completely broken, it might cause a black hole that destroys the world, but it isn't our fault".

"I agree" is hardly a usage restriction, though. Using software that has a license file has an implicit agreement that you'll follow the license. If you modify a GPL app and never read the LICENSE file then you're still breaching an implicit contractual agreement if you then released it as public domain or another license. Putting a simple and non-restricting EULA at first run just removes the excuse of "I didn't see it" (or at least reduces it). It makes the acceptance of the license (which all open source code has, except public domain) more interactive and less passed, nothing more.

Re:Preaching to the choir, but

[init100]

Try finding a corporation with lawyers that think "two files in some system folder (probably /usr/share/firefox) that people are highly unlikely to look in" is sufficient for the warranty and liability disclaimer, though.

I agree. If manufacturers of plastic bags feel that they have to write "don't put these on your head, you can choke and die" (DUH!) on their bags to avoid getting sued when someone does this, I can see that Mozilla feels that they have to be more upfront than putting the stuff in some text file buried deep in some directory hierarchy.

Re:Preaching to the choir, but

[Fred Foobar]

If you modify a GPL app and never read the LICENSE file then you're still breaching an implicit contractual agreement if you then released it as public domain or another license.

No, this would not be a breach of any contract, implicit or not, because the GPL is a copyright license. It would be a simple case of copyright infringement, clear and simple. If you don't have a license (aka permission) to redistribute the software, you are infringing the copyright. The only way not to infringe the copyright is to follow the license. There have even been court judgments to the same effect in cases where some developer distributed GPL'd software under a different (and proprietary) license.

Re:Preaching to the choir, but

[Anonymous Coward]

The EULA could be a delightful piece of poetry, it doesn't matter. It's not the content that is offensive, it's having to read *something*.

Re:Preaching to the choir, but

[BitZtream]

Why is the EULA offensive?

It doesn't talk about your mother.

It doesn't make restrictions that are outragous.

It doesn't do anything that isn't restricts your right to use the software unless it is already restricted by something else (i.e. export laws).

As far as EULAs having no place in free software ... GPLv3 requires you to place notice of copyright clearly to the user when the app is started. Please see: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=963567&cid=25002187

Is that offensive to you?

Does the term Slave offend you when referenced related to the IDE bus?

I can understanding finding most EULAs offensive, but its just ignorant to apply such a blanket statement to all EULAs, specifically since they can grant you rights just as easily as they can attempt to take them away.

And technically, they can not take away any right. If a right is granted by law, no contract can take it away, otherwise we'd still have slavery in America.

I understand why you are prejudice against EULAs as in general, but essentially being a EULA racist is just ignorance.

Re:Preaching to the choir, but

[zrq]

I agree.

The only reason that this is being discussed at all is because FireFox has such a strong brand and people don't want to loose it.
But that doesn't mean we should accept this. If the major Linux distributions accept this from Mozilla, everyone else will want to have their own special EULAs displayed and the user experience will become degraded to the point where we have 10 or 20 different apps all popping up their own custom EULAs each with slightly different terms and conditions.

What happens if Mozilla add a couple of extra lines in the next release that makes the EULA just that little bit more restrictive. Do we go through the same hand wringing all over again "well ... we have accepted the first one, and it is only one tiny extra clause ..." ?

The only way to deal with this problem is to stop it before it starts. If Mozilla want to add an EULA, then FireFox gets removed from the default install.
It can still be available in the 'extras', where the user can explicitly accept the EULA when they install it.

Or, Mozilla work with Canonical, RedHat etc. to work out a way of adding the appropriate legal clauses to the system install screens. I have no objection to Mozilla wanting to protect their trademarks but they need to do it in a way that does not degrage the user experience. This kind of thing should be displayed when the software package is installed, not when it is run. If that means it gets dropped from the default install and has to be explicitly selected and installed later, then so be it.

On first boot, Fedora presents a simple to read page that says the license details are here : http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/Licenses/LicenseAgreement9 I'm sure Ubuntu has something similar. Sensible thing would be to add the bits Mozilla need to say to these so they are seen by the person who installs it, not the person who uses it.

Re:Preaching to the choir, but

[ebuck]

Every bit of GPL software is licensed. If your and end user, then it's licensed for you. To use it, you have an End User License Agreement.

The Gentoo bunch have their point, but really they're making a mountain out of a molehill. They should rebrand Firefox and forget it. They shouldn't be moaning about having to display a licence on startup, which is exactly what they don't do for inkscape, ls, evince, cp, evolution, rm, et. al.

If you don't like the idea that someone would trademark their project name, then fine. Remove the Linux kernel as that's trademarked. Or, better yet, please download the newest copy of firefox at http://www.firefax.com/ Yep, that's firefax, the backup domain (to offload the main one). No, no, no!!! We don't embed spyware into OUR browers, cause it's called Firefox! It is (almost) the same one you've been using for years!!! MUAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Now, you can still be upset about it, but hopefully you can see a reason or two to enforce a trademark, even when your main product is open source.

Re:Preaching to the choir, but

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is the EULA offensive?

It doesn't talk about your mother.

His mother's name is "Eula", you insensitive clod!

Re:Preaching to the choir, but

[IBBoard]

Okay, so "contract" isn't the best way to look at it. Still, not following the EULA would be a breech of the terms of the license (hence EULA - end user license agreement) in the same way as the license on GPL code. The Firefox license just says that "you can use it, it's open source, but we own the trademarked logos etc".

The other part of the EULA (the lack of warranty and liability) is a part of the GPL, so there's no difference there. The main difference is still just active versus passive - a dialog you confirm versus some files in a folder hierarchy that you're assumed to read.

Re:Preaching to the choir, but

[owlstead]

"Have you even read the EULA?"

NO. That's the general idea. I don't want to read the EULA of any open source application, especially if there are hundreds pre-installed already.

Re:Preaching to the choir, but

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

Does the term Slave offend you when referenced related to the IDE bus?

It is banned in LA:

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/11/25/0014257

Re:Preaching to the choir, but

[IBBoard]

And just to prove my point that there's no real issue with Mozilla's "EULA that isn't much of an EULA" they've now come out and said that EULA is a bad term and isn't really what it is because it doesn't add additional restrictions.

There's a bug in Bugzilla for this

[Anonymous Coward]

Bug 439604 - FireFox 3.0 requires agreement of non-Free EULA

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=439604

Maybe if a few people vote for this bug, it will bring it to the attention of whoever thought it was a good idea in the first place...

Time for everyone to complain about Ubuntu

[martinde]

When Mozilla asked Debian to stop redistributing Firefox, many people complained about Debian being too idealistic. (I.e. they really didn't look into the issue at all.) Let's hear the same chorus now about Ubuntu! (Hint: It's not Debian or Ubuntu that is the problem here folks!)

Re:Time for everyone to complain about Ubuntu

[Anonymous Coward]

You predicted it well. Now we get to hear about how evil people are for not selling their souls and backbones out. Must be the macbois that cause this type of thing.

Re:Time for everyone to complain about Ubuntu

[Russ Nelson]

Debian are too idealistic. Mozilla is doing what they feel is necessary to protect their trademark. That's not optional behavior. If you don't protect your trademark, you lose it. Period. If the USPTO thinks that you're not interested in protecting your trademark, you lose it.

The proper course of action here is to persuade Mozilla that they don't need to do this to protect their trademark. Not to run off and create some icethingie whose provenance is uncertain. Would you run any old Iceweasel that you downloaded from me? What if I'd put a virus into it? How would you know? How could you stop me?

Re:Time for everyone to complain about Ubuntu

[martinde]

If you can't trust iceweasel, how can you trust the kernel image you downloaded from the exact same Debian volunteers?!

Re:Time for everyone to complain about Ubuntu

[John Hasler]

> Debian are too idealistic.

Mozilla told Debian that if they used the Firefox trademark they could not apply security patches. Debian chose to support its users.

> Not to run off and create some icethingie whose provenance is uncertain.

The provenance of Debian's Iceweasel is at least as certain as that of Mozilla's Firefox.

> Would you run any old Iceweasel that you downloaded from me? What if I'd put a virus
> into it? How would you know? How could you stop me?

You figure that the Debian Iceweasel maintainers are putting backdoors in Iceweasel? But they would not do so if it was still called Firefox? Trademarks have magic protective powers? The fix is simple then: Debian needs to trademark Iceweasel. Everything will be ok then.

They're afraid of the community they helped create

[TheModelEskimo]

They're afraid of being torn to shreds by the open source community; the Firefox trademark is seen as something like a big life preserver for Mozilla. Without that trademark, they have a wide-open platform that can be duplicated, repackaged, improved upon (out of spite), etc. But people recognize the Firefox brand, and that's all they got. So ironically, they end up being afraid of their own community. Sad.

Mozilla becoming user hostile

[syousef]

Is it just me or is Mozilla becoming rather user hostile of late? I can't get over the way they forced through the "awesomebar" even though a lot of users have complained and don't like it. (In fact people dislike it so much there are extensions dedicated to trying to get something like the old address bar back. See oldbar and hideunvisited). It just seems that every time I hear about Mozilla and/or Firefox lately it's a valid complaint someone has that the company refuses to address or thinks it knows how to handle better and is shouting down the user. Not that they've been an example of how to listen to the community but lately it feels like Mozilla has been taken over from the inside. I was really happy with Firefox pre 1.0, and have steadily gotten less happy. I still use it because I'd rather have my nuts crushed than go back to IE. However it's become more of a pain in the arse with each release. I guess the choice is between sore nuts and a sore arse.

Re:Mozilla becoming user hostile

[couchslug]

"Is it just me or is Mozilla becoming rather user hostile of late?"

They can get hostile, then we can dump them for many other browsers.

Epiphany, Opera, and of course Konqueror work fine on my system. It's no problem to run a variety of browsers, and I don't own anything to a product that ceases to serve me.

Re:Mozilla becoming user hostile

[zsau]

"of late"? Mozilla has been user-hostile since around the time of Firefox, and they were never all that great before then. Firefox should be the last example of free software anyone ever uses.

They didn't *say* they weren't evil

[David Gerard]

I'm sure Jaundiced Jackass will default to Chrome.

But ya rly. IceWeasel all the way.

Brand name it is

[szundi]

These people are insane. Who cares that i need to press agree on an eula. Why not free software? You can ship Iceweasel that is the same software. The Firefox SOFTWARE is free, not the NAME. I think it's not a big deal. Ubuntu is showing an Eula to use the Firefox brand name, not to use the Firefox software.

Re:Brand name it is

[Darkness404]

Its typical for people to use brand names in regular conversation without even recognizing that they are brand names, it doesn't diminish the value of it. It was a stupidity of Mozilla to force a EULA on the Firefox name. For example, whenever I talk about Kleenex, Nintendo, Microsoft, Apple, IBM, etc, people know I am talking about a brand name and it doesn't diminish the value. For Mozilla to force an EULA is pure stupidity.

Re:Brand name it is

[szundi]

I think it's not pure stupidity.
They want a good brand name. They want that if someone installs "Firefox", he or she should be sure what he or she gets. This is about branding.
Who owns brand wants to protect it from others to distract the brand image from the path the brand owners want to follow. I think there isn't anything wrong about it. It's their right, they own the brand.
I just wanted to state that this forced Eula is not about use a software but to use the brand "Firefox". Ubuntu is no exception just because it's your favorite distro :) Ubuntu should follow the brand owner's way if Ubuntu wants to share the same path that this branded software goes on.
If not, call it Iceweasel. I think it's completely correct, the software is free.
You are right about saying IBM means the company not the word "IBM", but it's nothing to do about this problem and about everyone stating that Mozilla is a stupid org. I think such movements are necessary to supply a clear brand name, they have to do it or noone can be sure what firefox is.
Why is apache called httpd on Redhat? ;)

Re:Brand name it is

[Darkness404]

think it's not pure stupidity. They want a good brand name. They want that if someone installs "Firefox", he or she should be sure what he or she gets. This is about branding.

That would be a good reason IF people had been messing with the default install a bit too much and people have complained. I have tried a lot of Linux distros along with a few *BSDs. And I have never found something called Firefox that was something other than Firefox. If that had been happening then it would have made sense, but it hasn't.

I just wanted to state that this forced Eula is not about use a software but to use the brand "Firefox". Ubuntu is no exception just because it's your favorite distro :) Ubuntu should follow the brand owner's way if Ubuntu wants to share the same path that this branded software goes on. If not, call it Iceweasel. I think it's completely correct, the software is free. You are right about saying IBM means the company not the word "IBM", but it's nothing to do about this problem and about everyone stating that Mozilla is a stupid org. I think such movements are necessary to supply a clear brand name, they have to do it or noone can be sure what firefox is.

But everyone as of September 14th 2008 is clear what Firefox is. It is a web browser produced by Mozilla using the Gecko rendering engine. If that was unclear by the masses it might have not been so stupid. But everyone knows what it is. everyone also knows that KDE is a desktop environment using the QT toolkit, that Wireshark is a packet sniffer, that RPM is a package format.

Why is apache called httpd on Redhat? ;)

There are actually a lot of things called httpd, just search on Wikipedia for it. It brings up:

Httpd stands for Hyper Text Transfer Protocol Daemon (i.e. web server). The implied meaning can be: * The Apache HTTP Server. * The Lighttpd HTTP server. * The Nginx HTTP and reverse proxy server * The NCSA HTTPd HTTP server. * The CERN HTTPd HTTP server. * The Null httpd HTTP server. * The Thttpd HTTP server. * The TUX web server aka kHTTPd * The Canopy HTTPd HTTP server.

Re:Brand name it is

[John Hasler]

End users don't need permission to use the Firefox brand name, any more than I need permission to use it here.

Re:Brand name it is

[szundi]

You are AGAIN ignoring the facts:
1) Firefox software is yours.
2) Firefox name is not.
3) Firefox with 1 bit modification is not "Firefox" anymore by Mozilla. This is what Mozilla wants. Power about the name, not power about the software.

All firefox-is-not-free zealots are insane.

Re:Brand name it is

[NeoSkandranon]

Kleenex is a bad example to use here as it has very much become a generic term to most people.

Re:They're afraid of the community they helped cre

[David Gerard]

The problem is they allowed "community versions" of Firefox called "Firefox", then the evil did Windows downloads with spyware that technically fell within the rules. So they tightened way up. Now they're, ah, losing it.

Off with their heads. Long live the weasel.

[ZeroNullVoid]

Off with their heads. Long live the weasel.
Back to the Debian roots we go.

hi ho, hi ho, it's off to Debian /'s we go.

Why is this such a big deal?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, but complaining because a EULA pops up ONE TIME is pretty ridiculous. Reading through some of the comments, the problem is that it interupts the flow of the user? It only happens once, 99% of the people will just click accept, and you won't see it ever again.

Just put things into perspective, it's not a big deal.

Re:Why is this such a big deal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of us have principles that we value.

Re:Why is this such a big deal?

[mikael]

Why should you have to click it in the first place - with Linux, the licensing agreement is made when you download, install and use the contents of the RPM file. You accept that you are using the software at your risk, and you don't violate the pre-defined licensing agreement (GNU, BSD, whatever).

These EULA's seem to be getting everywhere - Fedora has the "agree not to develop WMD's" clause in the license agreement.

Some universities even have online one-click agreements for students registering online.

Re:Why is this such a big deal?

[Philip Shaw]

Fedora has the "agree not to develop WMD's" clause in the license agreement.

At least there is some sort of relevance, as I might want to use a Fedora-based system to control my nuclear missiles (I'm an evil overlord, I have to do something stupid). What really upsets me, though, is that I'm not allowed to use iTunes to control my nuclear bombs.

Stop whining

[resonantblue]

Jeez, who cares. It's just an EULA you have to accept once. Stop f'n whining about it.

Re:Stop whining

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Why exactly should they? I agree that EULAs are fairly minor interruptions(though their terms are often pretty nasty); but why should anybody accept an inferior experience when they could have a better one?

FFS, learned helplessness and petty nastiness are not a becoming combination.

Re:Stop whining

[Anonymous Coward]

Cuz it is the law, biatch!

Mozilla violating GPL?

[morgan_greywolf]

Agreed. Python is a trademark. And it isn't even GPLed. And it even comes installed on Ubuntu by default. How come I don't need to accept a Python EULA?

Hell, Ubuntu itself is a friggin' trademark. I don't need to accept a EULA when I install Ubuntu.

OTOH, the trademark holders of Python and Ubuntu don't require its users to accept EULAs.

Anyway, I wonder if this means that Firefox is violating the GPL? After all, Firefox itself is offered under the GPL (and other licenses) and uses GPL code, right? Doesn't the GPL state that you can't force additional restrictions?

Re:Mozilla violating GPL?

[Haeleth]

Anyway, I wonder if this means that Firefox is violating the GPL? After all, Firefox itself is offered under the GPL (and other licenses) and uses GPL code, right? Doesn't the GPL state that you can't force additional restrictions?

The source code that is compiled into browsers such as Firefox and Iceweasel is triple-licensed under the MPL, GPL, and LGPL. You have the option of choosing any or all of those when you distribute it. When Mozilla distributes it as Firefox, they choose to use only the MPL, which does allow them to add this EULA.

So, no, nobody is violating any licenses here.

Re:Mozilla violating GPL?

[CSMatt]

Mozilla holds the copyrights to the code. You can't violate your own copyright.

Re:Mozilla violating GPL?

[Lonewolf666]

On top of that, the original Mozilla Suite was made by Netscape, who then started the Mozilla foundation. So if you look who actually has the copyrights, you might find out that it is Mozilla Corp per donation from Netscape.

This said, I find EULAs moderately annoying, even if they only make me accept some Open Source license that I agree with in general. So switching to Iceweasel might actually be a good idea ;-)

Re:Mozilla violating GPL?

[morgan_greywolf]

Do they? Or does Netscape Communications Corp., own some of it?

Re:Mozilla violating GPL?

[FishWithAHammer]

Netscape gifted everything to Mozilla.

Not that much of a surprize.

[Seth Kriticos]

The trademark issues with Firefox are not new. I don't think, that it is a big problem as long as I get a choice to use it or not. There are plenty of alternatives. I personally gave up on it some time ago.. Well, on the rebranded Iceweasel anyway. Pulling it up when I need to but using another browser most of the time.

Free Software Needs no EULA.

[twitter]

Free Software, specifically copyleft software, only places restrictions on distribution. "End users" should never be troubled with an "I agree" button. Non free extentions and auto updates can be handled with permission dialogs when they happen and should never confront a free software user out of the box. Trade mark issues should be resolved at the distribution level, if at all.

Re:Free Software Needs no EULA.

[Atlantis-Rising]

What about, for example, limitations of liability?

Re:Free Software Needs no EULA.

[fm6]

Free Software, specifically copyleft software, only places restrictions on distribution. "End users" should never be troubled with an "I agree" button.

Except that "free" software does in fact impose a EULA on users. True, it's very lenient license, but it does place restrictions on what you can and cannot do with the software.

Just because FOSS people dispense with the "I agree" nonsense (which probably doesn't really have any legal effect anyway) doesn't mean there's no agreement or restrictions. And in point of fact, the restrictions imposed by the GPL have been the source of much heated discussion.

I just added "iceweasel" to my USE flags...

[Hurricane78]

...Fuck you, Mozilla!
Let's see who's in charge now!

The name "Firefox" and that orange creature shall be banned from my systems!

I have changed my mind

[Nimey]

When Debian started doing the Iceweasel thing, I though "oh, that's just Debian being a bunch of stuck-up wankers again".

Now I'm starting to think that it's Mozilla who are the wankers. WTF, the only software on Ubuntu I've ever had to do a EULA on was Java and Flash, because I installed ubuntu-restricted-extras, and those are proprietary.

Oh well, maybe when Chrome matures...

Re:I have changed my mind

[gujo-odori]

No kidding. Having KDE 4 be the default in Intrepid Ibex was bad enough (especially with, AFAICT, still no KDE 3.5.10 packages) available), but now this? The KDE 4 default issue was enough to make me install Debian Sid last week on a new machine I got at work last week instead of Kubuntu. I moved from Debian Unstable to *buntu in 2003, while it was still in beta. Ubuntu does a lot of great work and is by and large a truly outstanding distro in its various flavors, so it's really a shame that they are now doing foolish and poorly thought-out things like defaulting to KDE 4 and now this Firefox EULA.

Turns out Debian was right on Iceweasel and Icedove. They're also astute enough to have KDE 4 in experimental, where it belongs, not as the default in Unstable.

WRT Chrome, one of the things it will have to do to "mature" is to be available for platforms other than Windows, and using less memory than IE 8 would also be a start. Might be hard for it to duplicate the rich Firefox ecosystem, too, unless it uses Firefox plugins. Way easier to just use Iceweasel and Icedove and forget the branded versions of Firefox and Thunderbird.

Re:Alarming comment..... bad news for F/OSS

[ultranova]

"not Free Software, hence unsuitable for Ubuntu main"

I'd like to see Linux become more prevalent but this way of thinking makes that less and less likely. I want the best tools for the job, not just the most ideologically compatible.

Sadly, unlikely physical tools which once bought are yours to do with as you please, software comes with licenses which limit its use. That's why the license a particular piece of software comes with is a crucial part in determining its usefulness. The technically best tool in the world isn't any good if you aren't allowed to use it.

There is no place in my computer for licence fundamentalism

Due to the perverse aberration which is copyright law, you require a license to use a program. Due to the particularly hideous nature of that perversion, this license can have pretty much any terms, and it is anyone's guess which ones are actually legally binding. And due to the maliciously inhuman nature of the aberration, the punishment for breaking these twisted contracts can be a lifetime of debt slavery. As such, being careful what licenses the software in your computer uses isn't fundamentalism, but simple common sense and a matter of self-protection; it is foolish to deal lightly with the spawn of the pits who write those treaties.

That is why I think long and hard before allowing anything that is not licensed under GPL into my computer; I'm not well-versed in the dark arts of lawyercraft, and I fear my sanity would darken were I to gaze at the indescribable horror that is found on the pages of Intellectual Property Law. Thus do I fear the consequences were I to misinterprate the filthy tomes known as EULAs.

I don't see the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Just switch to Iceweasel, or better yet, Konqueror.

Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

I thought the idea of Ubuntu was to get linux adoption up - and by getting rid of Firefox, it'll just be more difficult to get people to migrate... Besides, displaying a EULA is common practice - maybe just have a big, blanket EULA when installing ubuntu - which covers all software included..

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[arth1]

Why would you want people to migrate? Let them use whatever they are happy with.

If people want to eat McDonald's for dinner every day, let them. I'll eat a home cooked meal instead, but it's not my place to evangelize.

If anything, I would like to see Linux marketing towards the unwashed masses decline. Fewer idiots using Linux means less dumbing down, less time spent by the developers explaining basic usage, and more time actually improving the product. The end result then becomes better for those who don't need their hand held.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Kneo24]

And how would they go about fixing their usability problems if those very people didn't use the operating system in the first place? If something isn't easily usable, it in a way, is broken. And if they aren't going to fix the usability of it, all of the other "improvements" will be largely for naught.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[GigaplexNZ]

I thought the idea of Ubuntu was to provide a community-based GNU/Linux distro by improving the experience, not just to do whatever it takes to get more users. Displaying a EULA is not common practice in the GNU/Linux world, and displaying one isn't the best way to improve the experience.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Yvan256]

Making something easier to use doesn't mean dumbing it down.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[xenocide2]

The problem is that the official icon is more usable than the community edition icon, which still has limitations. Ubuntu didn't always ship the branded icon, but it's clear that nobody realizes at first that the firefox quicklaunch icon is a web browser. It's like a joke that requires you to call it a "world wide web broswer", or remember what WWW is supposed to stand for. But hell if I know what to do about it. A page in the NYtimes with iceweasel icons promoting open source web browsers?

It's really incredibly sad what they're doing; phoenix was an unofficial project and they had to rename the project twice in order to make this branding thing possible again.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

If anything, I would like to see Linux marketing towards the unwashed masses decline. Fewer idiots using Linux means less dumbing down, less time spent by the developers explaining basic usage, and more time actually improving the product. The end result then becomes better for those who don't need their hand held.

Making something intuitive or just making it work is not the same as dumbing it down. When Linux improves, you feel it to, even if you're so savvy you only use the 1 and 0 keys on the keyboard. Unless you'd prefer to have to write down your favorite websites instead of using bookmarks like us super intelligent people.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

and by getting rid of Firefox, it'll just be more difficult to get people to migrate...

Why? AFAIK, none of the commercial Mozilla groups has any special claim on the code. The only thing you get in exchange for this EULA nonsense is the Firefox branding, isn't it? Just fork the code and call it "Web browser" in the UI, or use one of the existing alternatives. Average Joe won't know the difference because he doesn't care what a browser is as long as he can see web sites, and anyone technical will probably understand what has been done and not object anyway, or they'll just download Firefox themselves. In any case, there doesn't seem any reason to set an unwelcome precedent by letting commercial groups who are trying to take control of big name, high value projects start dictating terms to popular distro suppliers.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Bogtha]

by getting rid of Firefox, it'll just be more difficult to get people to migrate...

How? The only thing Ubuntu would lose is the brand name. The functionality is still there. And as far as the value of branding is concerned, simply by putting an Ubuntu CD in the drive, they have shown a willingness to choose something other than the big brand.

Besides, displaying a EULA is common practice

Not in Linux distributions it isn't.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[hedwards]

But it should be. The EULA is at present still considered to be binding. Now that may very well change in the future due to the tenuous nature of it. Not showing the EULA when requested is really a dick move.

Just because most GNU software doesn't have a EULA doesn't mean that projects which do should have their rights undermined for the sake of zealots. Of course the EULA isn't going to be displayed if it doesn't exist.

Requiring that the EULA be displayed 1 time the first time it's run is hardly unreasonable.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Homer1946]

Mod parent up. Requiring a EULA be displayed once as a requirement to benefit from all the hard work required to produce software such as Firefox is not unreasonable. Such a narrow and inflexible view of what constitutes free software really does such software a disservice.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[arth1]

And how would they go about fixing their usability problems if those very people didn't use the operating system in the first place?

Why would it need fixing if they don't use it?

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Belial6]

If people want to eat McDonald's for dinner every day, let them. I'll eat a home cooked meal instead, but it's not my place to evangelize.

If 98% of the people ate nothing but McDonalds, you would find it very difficult to eat a home cooked meal, as grociery stores would be all but extinct.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Dolda2000]

In many ways, I agree with you. I have no real drive to see people use the same system that I do. If they want to use Windows or some other non-free system, that's their problem.

However, I do have a very real drive to put the Microsoft monoculture out of action, since that would make for a much more interoperable world. I am actively troubled by people trying to send me MS Office files and people writing IE-only web pages. And getting people to use Linux is probably the best way to achieve the goal of avoiding that.

Mac OS X would work, too, though, so I try to evangelize Apple as well. However, if I'm getting people to switch, I would rather see them using a free system, and I don't think that the BSDs or Plan9 would be a good choice for very many end users. (Though to be sure, that goes for most Linux distros as well. If I evangelize anything, I'm trying to make it Ubuntu.)

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[slash.duncan]

Well questioned/stated. Just tell people that on (Ubunto/) Linux, firefox is called iceweasel. Unlike folks saying the same thing about firefox and IE, it's the truth, at least when Mozilla gets its panties in a twist when the distribution actually starts doing normal free software stuff with it.

Some of the iceweasel artwork is indeed quite nice, every bit as nice as the firefox artwork. The only fly in the ointment I've found is in starting from the command line (as Gentoo installs it anyway, appropriate USE flags set), firefox works but iceweasel doesn't. So set a symlink and be done with it. Besides, the people that would even come across the command line issue almost certainly can figure out what's up in any case. Those that can't, wouldn't tend to use the command line.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[westlake]

I would like to see Linux marketing towards the unwashed masses decline. Fewer idiots using Linux means less dumbing down, less time spent by the developers explaining basic usage, and more time actually improving the product. The end result then becomes better for those who don't need their hand held.
.

Spoken like a true Geek.

If there is anything the Linux developer does not need it is less communication and engagement with end users.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Zaiff Urgulbunger]

I don't know why Mozilla are imposing this but I guess it is for legal reasons... so I understand that they might *need* to do this, but it is reasonable for people to ask *why*. As an end-user, I really don't care to see EULAs; they have absolutely no real-world use to me since I don't bother read them, just like 99.9999% of people!

In fact, one this I *really* like about FOSS is that I don't have to deal with crap like EULAs. I can install software ridiculously easily, unlike software in the Windows/Mac world where I have to I have to agree to the licence, and then have the software badger me to make it the default app for whatever and drop icons all over the place like it's oh-so-important..... I'm veering off into a rant... ;)

Requiring a EULA be displayed once as a requirement to benefit from all the hard work required to produce software such as Firefox is not unreasonable. Such a narrow and inflexible view of what constitutes free software really does such software a disservice.

I don't see that *not* wanting to see the EULA is doing Mozilla a disservice. I don't see why they can't just tuck the EULA away on an "about:eula" page... or perhaps add a button to the Help/About window?

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Kneo24]

I hope you're just being purposely dense and just sort of trolling, but I'll bite anyway.

The obvious reason it needs fixing is because it's broken anyway. Even if you don't want the idiot users using the product, it would make it easier for your existing user base. And that doesn't even necessarily mean dumbing it down. It just means that it's less of a hassle to use overall.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[fugue]

True, the presence (or perceived presence) of dumb users leads to dumbing down of software (as anyone who has followed Galeon can attest to), but software companies develop based on markets, not ideologies. If fewer people ran Linux there would be no commercial software. Ideology is nice, but ideology without power (in this case, marketshare) is meaningless. In other words, your ideology's impact is something like (ideology's purity) * (market penetration).

If I could not get Mathematica and Matlab for Linux, it would be much less useful to me (unless it ran under Win4Lin (another commercial product created by demand)). Millions would switch to Linux but for AutoCad. Millions would switch away if Oracle weren't available. In time, there may be free alternatives to these things, but for now there is a massive difference between the commercial product and any free versions.

By the same token, every person running Windows or MacOS hurts me by making it less likely that a commercial software company will develop for Linux.

Unwashed masses give us power. Do not throw them out with the bathwater. Um, never mind...

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoever keeps modding this tard up as insightful should have their mod points revoked indefinitely. Nothing is insightful about what they're saying. It's all trivial bullshit geared towards hatred of the non-techie people, who believe it or not, might like something that works better than Windows and is free.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Anonymous Coward]

If anything, I would like to see Linux marketing towards the unwashed masses decline.

I can't get behind this sentiment. More than an OS for 1337 hax0r2, the world needs a stable, usable, free alternative to M$. If the big guys manage to lock down all available hardware with trusted computing and DRM crap, there will be negligible outcry if everyone's still addicted to proprietary software. At best, Linux users will be stuck limping at half-speed in some legacy mode or forced to fork over digital signing money.

I consider keeping Linux all pure and stuff a noble goal, but I consider freeing the PC platform a better one.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[moderatorrater]

If they're not using it, then there's something that could be done to improve it for them. You may be happy with Linux being hard as hell to use and hard to migrate to, but the point of the matter is that getting more people to adopt it will make it so that more people develop for it. Microsoft has a lot of zealots because they grew up using Windows, it works for them and they've always felt like they can do what they want. When you migrate to Linux, you have more power and flexibility, but if you can't use it then it's worse than windows. Even more, it makes the end user feel powerless, which means that they'll likely adopt other platforms when given the choice.

If you keep linux as a niche OS, then it'll always stay in the niche it's currently in. If you let it expand out of that niche, it'll get more users and more development resources as a result.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[kklein]

Agreed. Then I won't have to keep explaining to tiresome dolts like you why I prefer a computer that works right.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[nurb432]

It also isn't the end of the world either. The user just clicks ok without reading and moves on with his free stuff.

Open-office also has one on first use. I'm sure there are others.

Its still free.. i don't see the big deal.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Anonymous Coward]

But Ubuntu *is* getting the most users. It must be providing one of the worst experiences. Anything else would not be Windows-y enough.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Tuoqui]

Well many GPL'ed software display the GPL in a EULA format. Last I heard the Mozilla license was fairly compatible with open source goals (seeing as they can take everything and just rebrand it if they want which is something the GPL is designed to permit).

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[atraintocry]

I don't really see how having more people who don't have the skills or time to pick up linux translates into usability issues getting solved. Grandma isn't going to be hitting up launchpad.

The only good argument for cramming linux down people's throats that I can think of is that it will foster adoption of standards. Even that doesn't satisfy me. I'm with arth1...I think linux needs more people who appreciate it for what it is, and can code. Not more MS refugees (there's enough Unix refugees as it is).

But, and this is a big but, we're talking about Ubuntu, which has the stated goal of bringing computing to as many people as possible. I think we need to evaluate this latest FF EULA stupidity in that light. Is including FF important for Ubuntu's mission? How about just temporarily?

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh, and what do you do when the grocery store closes down because 99% of the population uses McDonald's instead of cooking their own food and you end up paying the McDonald's tax as health insurance prices skyrocket for everyone instead of just people who eat at McDonald's?

If nobody uses linux, it stops improving. With no competition, windows stops improving and starts abusing its monopoly again and you get to buy a windows 7 license with your next computer, which no long has driver support in linux for half its stuff because nobody uses linux anymore.

Now I'm not saying linux should be pushed on anyway, but I see absolutely no problem with making sure people are aware that there are viable alternative to windows for most people, and I see no problem with improving the ease-of-use of Ubuntu to make it more appealing to a wide audience. They're not going to take away your command line, you can still edit all the config files manually, and you can always use a custom version of linux instead of Ubuntu if they make it so you don't feel superior enough when using it. Ubuntu is not linux for geeks and it was never meant to be.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Burpmaster]

It's entirely unreasonable to demand a special right that, if everyone got it, would completely ruin the experience. Imagine if every application popped up an EULA the first time you ran it. Per user or per boot of the LiveCD. One of the main selling points of Ubuntu is that it's devoid of common Windows annoyances, one of which is the constant popups that don't serve the user in any conceivable way and nobody reads anyway.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[MightyYar]

Personally, I want enough people using Linux to get some commercial apps. Games, too. Even the game load that Mac gets would be nice.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[QuoteMstr]

No! The very concept of a EULA is what's offensive. In the free world, we should be doing everything we can to oppose this contemptible practice.

Around the turn of the last century, books had EULAs. Then the first sale doctrine came along. Precisely the same principles apply to today.

EULAs are wrong. Just say no.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen brother! I want something that takes some brains to use. I don't mind actually knowing my system at all. More users just means more things like "build-essentials" not being included in the base package. I fear it goes down hill from there if we have more users who expect an "appliance" to do their computing on. That just limits what people like us can do with it.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, if it means we have to listen to less cult-like braying and bloviating about "free as in freedom," I'd be more than happy to let the geeks have Linux all to themselves.

But it goes two ways: Either shut the fuck up about source code being some sort of human rights issue (it isn't), or be ready for people -- a wide spectrum of people -- to listen, become intrigued for one reason or another, and take a seat at the table.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Anonymous Coward]

Making something easier to use doesn't mean dumbing it down.

As a KDE user I think it does....see Gnome.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly...all the bells & whistles that go with dumbing it down and making it more "user friendly", if anything, make it less usable, waste system resources, and get in the way.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[pizzach]

I think you missed the context of the original poster. Using the Firefox brand creates more theoretical bugs than it fixes in the name of idiot users. There is a lot of wasted programming time getting MozCorp permission for every little thing that could be used for improving the UI.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Anonymous Coward]

the moment you start explaining what is governed by common sense, i'd say that's dumbing it down.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[oldhack]

If people want to eat McDonald's for dinner every day, let them. I'll eat a home cooked meal instead, but it's not my place to evangelize.

Easy for you to say. You live in Burger King.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[GameGod0]

Why would you want people to migrate? Let them use whatever they are happy with.

Because Canonical is a business, and it's hard to make money as a software company when you don't have a userbase (regardless of whatever your particular business model is).

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[narcberry]

Why would you want people to migrate? Let them use whatever they are happy with.

I think the point is to have them migrate to something they are happy with, nobody said force ubuntu on users.

But as to 'why would you want people to migrate', to create more competition in the OS market as people start to realize there are viable non-microsoft options.

Competition is good for us, the user.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Daengbo]

They have tons of usability bugs that they ignore right now.

My example:
When Feisty was released, my non-tech friends found a usability problem. When you yanked a USB key without unmounting it first, you were told to right-click and choose "Eject" from the drive menu, but of course there was no "Eject," only "Unmount," leaving a user unable to follow the directions. The problem required a simple string change and a patch was provided.

The bug was quickly and incorrectly marked as a duplicate of another one about the discoverability of unmount, and eventually the whole mess was marked "Invalid." The bug couldn't be fixed because it would have broken translations.

It was a fucking joke.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

... Yes, and because OSX is so inferior to windows, it is clear that usability comes at the cost of dumbing it down.

Honestly, I would argue that OSX is better than windows, since it has better memory management and process control. Sure, apple is 'evil' and doesn't give people free reign to tinker with their system - but OSX isn't any less powerful/dumbed down because it is easy to use.

*feels dirty promoting apple...*

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[TehZorroness]

Yes, perhaps, but you are not forced to agree in order to use the product. You may deny the GPL and still use the software. Any software packaged on windows which requires you to check that you accept the terms is improperly packaged.

According to the Free Software Definition (GNU's version, not debian's), the first required right is to be able to run the program for any particular purpose. Yes, Free Software comes with a license, but that license deals with distribution rights, and doesn't bind you like an EULA does. Requiring people to accept an EULA is against the philosophy of Free Software. That's why people are complaining, some idiot felt like writing a story, and we are posting now.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[ozmanjusri]

With no competition, windows stops improving and starts abusing its monopoly again

They improved Windows? They stopped abusing their monopoly?

When did that happen? All I heard about was Vista, hacking ISO and 228 patents. Why wasn't their change of heart on the front page??

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Darundal]

Yeah, but for a distribution trying to get people to try Linux it is an issue. It is correct that those people who are trying Ubuntu are willing to choose something other than the big brand. It is also true that, for a lot of those people, while they may consider Firefox to be cool, they don't consider it to be the big brand. One of the big hangups people have when trying a new operating system is the adjustment of having to use new applications. Having things as familiar as possible helps to make people more relaxed with the idea of using a new OS.

Branding is a big thing for a lot of people. Especially people who aren't the technically proficient types. You know, the ones who call any digital audio player an iPod. Or who think Microsoft invented the internet or the GUI. A lot of those people can't name a reason a particular program is good off the top of their head, except saying something about the established (deserved or not) brand of the product and the company that makes it. The functionality for a lot of those people is very possibly a secondary concern. Considering how Ubuntu wants to be one of the major desktop OS contenders (and is closer to that goal than any OS not produced by Apple or Microsoft), having some appeal to those people is definitely in the best interest of everyone involved.

Now, if some other group wants to shove their EULA in everyones face on a default Ubuntu install, should Mark cave? Probably not, unless not doing so would severely hamper their goals. Is that fair? Hell no. Is it against the spirit of the OSS community? Maybe, but a lot of distributions make compromises in the sake of usability and appeal. If they didn't, all of us who use Linux and BSD would end up using distributions such as blag and gNewSense. Now I can't speak for anyone else, but I like having my wireless card automatically detected and set up when I install my operating system, and I know that it's drivers are not free as in freedom.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[mhall119]

If people want to eat McDonald's for dinner every day, let them. I'll eat a home cooked meal instead, but it's not my place to evangelize.

But why would anybody sell you hamburger at the grocery store,when everybody gets their hamburgers from McDonalds? Why sell you ketchup when everybody gets their ketchup at McDonalds? Heck, why even sell you spaghetti, when nobody eats spaghetti, they all eat hamburgers at McDonalds?

In a market economy, you choice is limited when the majority of people choose the same thing.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Vexorian]

You know, I've always been the utmost firefox advocate, but even I think the best choice for canonical would be using iceweasel instead, this is ridiculous, EULA = Not free software, period. And no, this is not an issue for adopters since iceweasel is basically the same as firefox only with a different name and logo.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[barry99705]

If 98% of the people at nothing but McD's, the world would be a much emptier place. Though where would you bury all the over weight corpses?

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some reasons why you'd want the unwashed masses to migrate to Linux:

• you will no longer receive proprietary and unreadable file formats from Windows users
• you can design websites far more easily with greater features and usability, thanks to standards
• hardware manufacturers will be forced to please the Linux crowd by throwing resources into the development and improvement of the Linux kernel
• current Windows developers will turn to developing Linux applications instead of Windows ones (even just small internal company software counts here)
• developers will need to cater for more idiots, which will most likely cause developers a lot of problems making a balance between power users and idiots with UI design - a better result should be obtained in the long run

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Anonymous Coward]

In some cases, yes it does.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Cassius Corodes]

Just take them to McDonalds, and the cycle continues!

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Draek]

Slashdot's guide to get modded up to +5 in a Linux discussion:

#1: Call anyone who disagrees with you a "zealot".
#2: State that a certain undetermined group of people are having their rights undermined by #1.
#3: State or otherwise imply how #2 is unacceptable, such as calling #1 "unreasonable" or #2 "a dick move".
#4: You win.

My thoughts on the matter? if you wanted an EULA, you shouldn't have released the software under the GPL.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[crystalattice]

On the one hand, I agree with you. People should use what they want. Or, like programming languages, use what's best for the purpose(though I guess that doesn't really apply with a general purpose OS).

However, the point of Linux and GNU is that people aren't beholden to a company's proprietary software. The OS and software are Free (libre) and people are empowered, for want of a better term. Not to mention the vast quantity of free (price) software available.

This would stop things like DRM preventing people from using their legally purchased items or locking people into a particular vendor.

There's a reason Linux is becoming so popular in the rest of the world. Granted, it still has to fight the pirated Windows copies but it's moving faster nowadays.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Tubal-Cain]

Just fork the code and call it "Web browser" in the UI...

That's what Iceweasel is: a rebranding.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless all applications do it, then it becomes highly impractical, or at the very least extremely annoying. Sort of like the old BSD license with the advertising clause.

Nobody reads the EULA anyway so why force it to be displayed if you can go around it? And you can, just use Iceweasel.

One of the reasons I like Linux and BSD is because it doesn't have all that dogshit we see on other platforms (like serial numbers, activation etc). Of course it isn't a problem if just one application does it, but it's the principle of the thing, y'know?

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[InfiniteLoopCounter]

If anything, I would like to see Linux marketing towards the unwashed masses decline. Fewer idiots using Linux means less dumbing down, less time spent by the developers explaining basic usage, and more time actually improving the product. The end result then becomes better for those who don't need their hand held.

I agree. More software ought to follow in the footsteps of KDE 4.0. This way developers could develop for the sake of developing software. And, because they wouldn't have to worry about things like users actually using their products, they wouldn't have so many of those annoying bug reports.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

If you really want to use a system that doesn't have a bunch of idiots using it, and aren't dumbing it down. Why not switch your self to something cooler like Plan 9, or GNU HURD? No idiots using those. Every one of the developers is focusing on improving the products. No one is trying to explain basic usage or convert them to the platforms, and I don't think anyone will try to hold your hand.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. Here's the thing, though: the logo is not under the GPL. It's proprietary, All Rights Reserved, anti-copyleft. It's pretty evil, and it's there so that they can make distributors to do inhumane things like forcing users to click through a EULA. If it weren't for that, all they'd have is a trademark, and it would be difficult for Mozilla to argue that a EULA prevents a moron in a hurry from some sort of confusion.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[infinityxi]

I don't know why you or other people on this thread think that Linux distributions are all going to go in the same direction. You don't have to use Gnome/KDE. Hell there are tons of alternatives, not even counting the distributions that fit a wide variety of niches. Want to use a system that 'takes brains'? Go to distrowatch and pick 1 or pick up a BSD. Also Ubuntu and other mainstream distributions don't prevent you from changing your system to suit your needs. I always have a console window up, Ubuntu doesn't obfuscate the interface to prevent me from using the console. So let the masses have a linux for them, you can only benefit from it since at the core all distributions of Linux are the same (Kernel and driver compatibility). It ensures that more hardware and software will be supported, even if you don't prefer the popular distributions out there.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[RAMMS EIN]

``If people want to eat McDonald's for dinner every day, let them.''

Aye, as long as they don't harm me, people can do whatever they want. But what about eating McDonald's for dinner every day, while I contribute to their health insurance? What about people running insecure systems, leaving me to cope with the spam once they get infected?

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[ScreamingCactus]

For all the people who grew up on McDonald's, a home-cooked meal is a foreign concept. Plus (going along with the metaphor) most people think they need to be some kind of master chef to cook at home, and half of them have been exposed to too much misinformation about cooking your own meals ("Home-cooked meals? Don't terrorists eat those?")

I understand what you're saying about it being dumbed down, but I can't see Linux ever going the way of Microsoft. In an attempt to make something that everyone can use, Microsoft makes something that no one wants to use. I think Ubuntu just wants more people to try Linux, in hopes that once they try it they'll like it. And since the internet is something everyone uses, I think including a familiar browser is a major part of getting people to switch, or at least try Linux.

I also think that having a larger community will only help Linux. There are plenty of good programmers out there who only code for windows because that's what they grew up using. The fact that the Linux community isn't in it for the money is all the reassurance I need that they won't be making shitty Microsoft-esque products in an attempt to appeal to Joe Blow who has nothing to offer other than the contents of his fat wallet.

A larger commmunity of at least semi-intelligent users means more support on the forums and more software being produced. Also, less reliance on Microshaft.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[crhylove]

What? Is Iceweasal somehow different in functionality? Do we need to make the icon more orange and blue?

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[shaitand]

'But it should be. The EULA is at present still considered to be binding. Now that may very well change in the future due to the tenuous nature of it. Not showing the EULA when requested is really a dick move.'

I agree that if Mozilla has a EULA that EULA should be displayed if they want. That said, its having a EULA in the first place that is a really dick move. It's not about the annoyance factor, EULA's are anti-thesis to the spirit of free and open software. Something Mozilla seems to care less and less about since it went .com

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[guyminuslife]

So true. I remember when I first started Ubuntu, I didn't know what to expect, but when I saw that Firefox icon at the top of my screen, I knew everything was going to be alright.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't directed to firefox specially but..

Every time free software gives me an EULA I'm offended. It's as if sticking that retarded "agree or go to hell" bullshit everywhere was a fad or something.

Have you folks ever read the GPL? YOU DON'T FUCKING NEED TO AGREE TO IT JUST TO USE THE SOFTWARE.

You know, if this goes on, I'll start ripping off this crap and rereleasing it myself. I might even throw the whole GPL to the garbage bin and replace it with BSD while at it. What you gonna do then, sue me?

Phew, now I feel much better.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should we switch to linux when it would make life easier to you? No, you switch to windows, then you would not have those problems. Damn whiner.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[awrowe]

Seems to me that as time goes by, Mozilla seem to be inserting their heads inch by inch, further up their arses

Sad really.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Goldberg's Pants]

Why do people always bring up the health insurance bollocks? If you have a car, you subsidize bad drivers. But you never see endless tirades on that. No, the silence is almost deafening. No, gotta get in the dig at fat people don't you, even though there's increasing evidence that there is a LOT more at work than eating junk food and lacking exercise behind obesity.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Goldberg's Pants]

As Windows annoyances go, EULA's are fairly low down on the list for most people.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Legion_SB]

It was on Digg.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Yfrwlf]

Or quite simply put, the parent is a fucking idiot. I'm sorry but preaching that less Linux use is a good thing when you yourself use it is contrary to all economic, social, and common sense thought. If you're using Linux just because it's a niche OS, you badly need to re-diagnose your life. And for anyone even thinking about making the argument that using something that is less popular is good just because there are less viruses is full of it too, because obscurity is not good security even if it may help in the short run.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[howlingmadhowie]

the problem with this approach is that people eating at macdonalds do not force you to eat at macdonalds but people producing files in proprietary formats or using proprietary protocols do force you to use the same software if you want to interact.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Yfrwlf]

Because you use Linux, you need to realize that what you are using is community-driven software. If there are no longer communities to drive that software, that software won't exist, or at least won't progress anymore, depending. So, if you're a Linux user, you should always care about it's uptake as it directly effects you, whether you like that fact or not. If Linux had 90% desktop share, right now today, Linux software would be in much better shape than it is and there would be many many more programs for Linux. You like programs, don't you? That's what I thought.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Yfrwlf]

Thank you. "Durrrr I use Linux but I hate Linux software being usable! I don't want any more Linux software, vi is all I need!" Yeah, ok you go away and create some program that only you know how to use, so the rest of us can help push Linux software development by making it more usable and easier to access so that us as well as others can use it, attracting more to the platform and allowing even more software development/use to occur.

I just don't understand how anyone could purposefully want to shoot themselves like that, it's the most selfish asinine lacking-in-common-sense thing I've ever heard.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Yfrwlf]

No doubt about their abuse, and IMO there should be a LOT more lawsuits against them, but the poster is definitely right in that Microsoft has actually invested a little bit of bought-out ideas into some of their software due to competition from Apple, Linux, and OSS in general. IE would not be as less-sucky-than-it-was if it weren't for Firefox and other OSS.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[hardwarefreak]

And how would they go about fixing their usability problems if those very people didn't use the operating system in the first place?

Easy: Have Novell and IBM hire the top UI developers away from Apple and put them to work on Gnome, FireFox, and ThunderBird.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Yfrwlf]

It's funny to see that some companies are using Wine/Cider more and more. The Mac version of Spore, for example, really isn't a Mac version at all, it's the Windows version wrapped up in Wine/Cider. It's smart for companies to choose to use libraries which are cross-platform, so right now Wine is providing that. Of course you can run Linux programs on Windows because Linux libraries are also cross-platform to my knowledge, so hopefully what things will evolve into is a battle among cross-platform libraries, making the OS not matter. Once that starts happening more, hoping it will continue, more and more programs will be cross-platform, then who will be out in the cold? I know, how about the company charging $300 for Vista Ultimate. So yeah, that would be nice to see happen. Cross-platformness and cross-distroness everything FTW.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Yfrwlf]

Or quite simply, more and better Linux software. ^^

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Anonymous Coward]

but the point of the matter is that getting more people to adopt it will make it so that more people develop for it

Making it easier to develop for will make it so that more people develop for it.

Still waiting for a Visual Studio-killer on Linux...

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Yfrwlf]

Not to mention that the reality is it's just legal BS, because you can leave a browser running and someone else can get on, etc etc, I mean I have Firefox running 24/7 myself. I think if you want to read and understand the legal blatherings about the software you use, you should be able to do so, but not forced into it. No one reads it, no one cares, you should read it before using the software if you want to. That's the way things should be, any way, but the sad reality is that certain countries happen to be sue-crazy which is the reason for constant EULA pop-ups in the first place. I blame lawyers and the legal system.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[wonnage]

Neither is not providing a good/familiar web browser, though...

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Yer Mum]

If the problem is a different theme to fit in with Ubuntu's GUI better, then Ubuntu can package an Ubuntu theme with the standard Firefox.

If the problem is a GUI bug, why would Ubuntu need permission to fix it just on the version of FF which comes with Ubuntu? Wouldn't it be easier to open a bug in Mozilla's Bugzilla with the patch included and propagate that fix to all versions of Firefox?

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Yer Mum]

I don't think Apple got their current reputation with regard to GUIs with that attitude.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[legirons]

Besides, displaying a EULA is common practice..

It's the opposite of what free software stands for, it is an awful shock to people when they see linux distributions attempting to restrict their freedom (e.g. Mandrake used to have a EULA - I thought I must have downloaded the wrong OS by mistake)

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[zsau]

That's not entirely true. As market share's increased, more flexible software has decreased. At the moment, you essentially have two complete desktop environments which make it hard to "mix and match" to get the desired outcome. This makes Linux less like the system I want to run. Sawfish, the only window manager I have found which correctly supports focus follows mouse[*], spent over four years without a release until last year, and has only had relatively minor updates since. This wasn't of course the end of the world; Sawfish was and remains an excellent window manager — better than any of the more actively maintained ones, for my purposes. This example is not unusual. If you don't use Gnome or KDE nowadays, you aren't benefiting from the increased usership.

I recognise that there is an advantage to other people using different software. The Windows/IE/Office monoculture made it hard for me to view certain websites or open certain documents. But there is no particular advantage to me of a Linux/Gecko/OpenOffice.org option over a Windows/Gecko/OpenOffice.org option.

[*] Many window managers purport to support this feature, but it is easy to have the mouse over a window without it having the current focus, for instance, by using Alt-Tab style switching, using drag-and-drop, or by right-clicking to open a context menu, and then closing it while the mouse is over another window.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[zsau]

"Debian includes a Firefox-based browser." Is that against trademark law to say? It seems to adequately respect Mozilla's trademark rights as well as satisfying brand-name concious people.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Burpmaster]

As Windows annoyances go, EULA's are fairly low down on the list for most people.

Maybe so, but it's still an annoyance, and it's one that will be seen very early and hurt first impressions. Also, though Windows users may be used to EULA's while installing software, getting one when they're actually trying to run a program is going to be jarring.

In this age of user-hostile software, I've seen people impressed when I pointed out the lack of EULA's. It helps to show that Ubuntu really is something different from the dystopian Windows software ecology and can free them from the fear of installing new software or updates. I'd hate to see EULA's start appearing in Ubuntu.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Anonymous Coward]

It also means fewer drivers, less money to developers, and more proprietary communication "standards". If more people ran Linux, fewer would send MS Office files as attachments, and it would be easier to get hardware documentation.

It's shortsighted to think that we can survive in a tiny niche, especially as personal computing loses more and more of its former culture of openness.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Evil Pete]

Ahh. Everyday is a McSoylent day.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[arth1]

Sawfish, the only window manager I have found which correctly supports focus follows mouse

And here you hit one of my pet peeves related to dumbing down for the masses.
Standard X mouse behaviour is now broken in most window managers, because it's been dumbed down, presumably to accommodate Windows users. Having the active window not be on top is incredibly useful. It allows you to work with partially overlapping windows, and actually work in them. But when any mouse click brings a window to the front, you defeat the purpose of X mouse behavior and focus-follows-mouse. On the other hand, since the title bar might be obscured, clicking the border of a window should bring the window to the front, and right-clicking it send it to the rear. Compiz/Emerald, the uber-newbie-friendly thang, breaks this traditional and useful behaviour completely. It's made for -- and, I suspect, by -- the new generation of Linux users which don't grasp concepts like working in overlapping windows or why X mouse behaviour was designed the way it was.

Another couple of changes to the mouse pointer behaviour also defies logic, and can only be explained by a desire to dumb things down for the masses:
- Double-clicking the top left traditionally closes a window. Even Windows gets this right. The reason why this is needed in addition to the widget for windows closing is closely linked to overlapping windows: The close widget might be obscured. Those who blow everything up full screen or use tiled windows won't need it, but those who are used to overlapping windows do.
- The mouse pointer traditionally flips when RMB is pressed. This is now disabled in almost all desktop environments. The traditional behavior serves a purpose: to not obscure the choice you're making. But it's confusing for newbies, so it's disabled.

I see dumbing down all over the place. Firefox, to stray back to the original topic, lacks many of the advanced configuration options that Netscape/Mozilla had, and Seamonkey still have most of. Because Firefox was dumbed down for the masses, presumably in an effort to avoid giving people enough rope to hang themselves with.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Bert64]

A closer version of your analogy would be...
If 95% of people ate at mcdonalds for every meal of the day, then other establishments selling food would go out of business and make it very difficult for you to eat anything else.

Sure you *could* eat something else, if you looked hard enough for it, but if you ever went out to a shopping mall or travelled on a plane or train only mcdonalds would be available to you.

This would be a closer situation, windows is everywhere and is designed to keep people locked in to microsoft products, it is not designed to interoperate with users and allows users the choice to use something else... It is primarily designed to make choosing something other than microsoft as difficult as possible.

So since microsoft won't change their behaviour (and why would they, the current model is working for them), the only alternative is to get sufficiently large numbers of people migrated onto other platforms that supporting only the proprietary microsoft way of doing things becomes a burden rather than an easy option.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[teh kurisu]

Just tell people that on (Ubunto/) Linux, firefox is called iceweasel.

No, no, no, what you want is a shortcut, either on the desktop or in the main menu, labelled 'Web'. Or 'Internet'. Real people don't care if it's called Firefox or Iceweasel, they just want the web.

Microsoft have had this sussed for years. If you were a non-technical user and wanted to use the internet, and you were confronted with two shortcuts labelled 'Internet Explorer' and 'Mozilla Firefox', which one would you pick?

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Bert64]

And no mindshare, people migrating from windows will have no idea what it is and blame it when things go wrong...

And a different user agent string, which falls fowl of badly designed browser sniffing websites.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Jesus_666]

In that case you have absolutely no right whatsoever to complain about vendors not supporting Linux. Why should anyone go out of their way to support a niche OS? Is 3D acceleration neccessary in a datacenter? No, so why should NVidia, ATI and Intel ship accelerated drivers for their hardware? X11 also runs on fairly generic, unaccelerated drivers and users who are smart enough to run Linux are smart enough to set up a dualboot system. Besides, you can always reverse engineer the Windows drivers under the DMCA interoperability exception.

If you want mass-market hardware and software to support Linux you have to make Linux a mass-market OS. If you insist that Linux should be for techical users only you confine it to that niche and substantially lower any interest companies outside that niche have in supporting it (after all, writing printer drivers for an OS that's never going to have more than 1% market share on the desktop is less profitable han telling Linux users to just buy a PostScript-compatible laser printer).

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Bert64]

During install, display an html page saying...
"The software you are about to install is made available under the following terms"
"Mozilla - link to mozilla.html"

etc etc

With an "OK" box at the bottom.

It just becomes another part of the installer, and people ignore it. Displaying them all individually has the same effect of being ignored, but it would be far more annoying.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[StrategicIrony]

yes, and what if each and every package that was installed by default suddenly wanted a EULA?

would an hour of clicking through boilerplate make the Ubuntu experience better?

Or is FireFox just so special that they get to do it and nobody else does?

Just curious...

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Hucko]

http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/ sheesh! how many times to we need to link to these!

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Jesus_666]

This isn't yet default behavior in GNOME? The last time I used KDE (been Linux-less for a while) exactly that was already implemented as a menu style option. You could either have the menu list just app names or a combination of the name and what the app does, like "Web browser (Mozilla Firefox)". I would've expected GNOME to have adopted that already.

But then again, they're probably in the process of doing so but can't decide whether unchangably imposing one of the two options on the user or adding a dropdown list to the options dialog is the bigger evil.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is, when they eat at McDonald's, they fund their anti-competitive attacks on Burger King. "I have in this briefcase 1,000,000 patties of infringing delicious". For the good of the industry, we need people not paying McDonald's.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Corporate Troll]

falls fowl

What do birds have to do with this?
Hint: it's "falls foul".

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[JohnFluxx]

Windows isn't made up of thousands of separate programs. The can present a single EULA at installation.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[teh kurisu]

It's labelled 'Firefox Web Browser' in Feisty, so yes, it's a bit of a non-issue. I only use Linux as a server OS these days, that's my excuse ;)

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Delkster]

The problem is that if there aren't enough people eating the cooked meal, doing so might become rather expensive due to lack of supply or choice.

There's at least one reason why having some share in the market is good also for those who don't require the hand-holding: in the world with commercial interests, there's a lot more support for systems with at least some market share, and that support is often necessary to have a reasonable level of compatibility. Not everything is under the control of the free software community, and that is particularly true if we lack market share.

Is it possible to find hardware that works even with niche operating systems? Yes. Is it a good thing for me if I have fewer choices doing that, potentially forcing me to take a technically inferior or more expensive product just to satisfy the compatibility requirements? No.

The same goes for software: The free software community may be able to cater to most of the needs of its members, also mine. However, there are always situations where I may not have much choice.

Let's say that my company uses a proprietary VoIP solution for some internal communication. I can use Linux for my development work, but if that proprietary application didn't work on my Linux system, I'd be forced to use Windows just because of that. Changing the application to something less proprietary may not be within my power. Using two different operating systems on a daily basis would not be very convenient. While I'd probably end up doing just that, it would also be possible that I or someone else would have to give up using free software due to lack of support from vendors whose products they need to use anyway.

The same goes for other proprietary formats and codecs, although the community has been surprisingly good at supporting many of those (more or less legally) with free implementations. Nevertheless, when most other people use proprietary systems, commercial interests dictate that life is easier also for many of us who wouldn't need the hand-holding itself when there's some degree of commercial interest in the system we use.

Of course there may be valid concern that if we give up too much to accommodate those commercial interests, we lose exactly what we're trying to achieve. I want a (more or less) free system that I can more or less conveniently use, but of course if I give up significant freedom to achieve the usability, I fail to satisfy the other desire I have.

I tend to follow the idea that a 99% free system that is usable for, say, 10% (or 50% or whatever) of people provides more freedom than a 100% free system that is only usable for 1% of people. Where you go over the line of giving up too much freedom is obviously debatable. For me, the current (or former?) state of Ubuntu where they provide proprietary drivers where needed and partially support some proprietary applications is acceptable. That includes the former policy of providing a semi-nonfree Firefox (with the branding making it that way) but without a click-through EULA.

It's very sad that Mozilla has chosen to do this. It's as if they don't consider the distributors their collaborators anymore. However, if I were facing this situation as Canonical, I might have made the same choice even if it wouldn't be easy. Brands are a big thing no matter how much I dislike that, and I can easily see how a newly introduced Ubuntu user will, as his first thing, wonder he can get Firefox if he doesn't find it on his default setup.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Hucko]

While pp is funny, there are some who may agree with them. My wife for one

My wife is quite happy with WindowsXP and has Office 2003 (despite it being as slow as all buggery). She is currently going through a job application process, and the latest email contained a docx file. I groaned and moaned and told her to download the MS Word viewer -- from Microsoft's web page mind you for opening docx files -- and lo and behold it wouldn't open the file! "The file you are trying to open was written in an earlier version of Word, would you like to download the compatibility software?" We dutifully did and it hung or something. My heart is dropping that she is going to insist on buying the the latest Office. I gave it a go on my linux machine (OO.org 2.4) which it did without any noticeable problems.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Hucko]

Linux isn't the key, just a medium. I am more worried that it will become the new monoculture. I'm currently trying to get Plan 9 to run and learn that. Or solaris. or both.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[G-forze]

Because the GP was making a point using a McDonald's -analogy. Besides, why would anyone be wanting MORE car-analogies?

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[speedtux]

I generally agree with the sentiment, but we need a certain number of users to make sure drivers and other stuff keep getting written. 10-20% market share is good for that. Let the idiots that comprise the other 80% of the market go with Windows and Macintosh.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[arth1]

Yes, competition is good.
But true competition implies freedom to choose, not being told that you should use specific software to be "in".
And it means having multiple alternatives.

Telling people to go to the second largest vendor isn't creating competition. It's creating a duopoly.

Let people have the freedom to use the OS that's best for them, whether it's Windows XP, PalmOS, GNU/Linux, NetBSD or Unicos. And let them use the browser that's best for them, whether it's IE, Firefox, Opera, Chrome, Netfront or Lynx.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Goaway]

A goddamn idiotic and immature rebranding, that is. The grandparent poster was suggesting doing it right.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[DrXym]

I assume the EULA is to protect their brandname. Firefox is still open source and you could this very minute grab every single line of the tri-licenced Firefox source and rebuild it for yourself. That's exactly what Iceweasel does.

Where Mozilla seems to be coming from is that Firefox and its artwork are a registered trademark and that they are keen to protect how its name is used, how the browser is packaged, what its default settings are. The source is open (and GPL'd) but the name isn't. The same could be said of most commercial open source - the owners are protective of their branding - which would be why gNewSense is called gNewSense and not Ubuntu Free Speech or similar.

Anyway yes you could use iceweasel if you so object to Mozilla protecting their brand. But then you are reliant on the iceweasel group to track Firefox and release timely bugfixes and security updates on their own. For the sake of an EULA I think I would prefer the official packages.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[foobsr]

I think linux needs more people who appreciate it for what it is, and can code.

Sounds like: "Public transportation needs more customers who can design energy saving transport systems all the way up from vehicle design to network layout in order to save the global energy crisis". Yuck.

CC.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Dolda2000]

Hold your finger on that trigger. Of course I realize that I'd be in trouble if the Linux community dissipated one day, but that's not what I'm arguing about. The millions of geeks and other technical users that Linux has had for many years now is more than enough to ensure that it doesn't become deprecated.

If Linux had 90% desktop share, right now today, Linux software would be in much better shape than it is...

Better shape in what way? Better GUI? In that case, I really could not care less, since I never use those fancy GUI programs anyway. And I really don't see any other major advantages that would be brought by having 90% desktop share.

...and there would be many many more programs for Linux. You like programs, don't you? That's what I thought.

No, I don't particularly like programs in themselves. I might, if I need them, like good programs, and mind you, at least 99% of all programs for Windows do not fit into those categories. They are either no good, being written in Visual Basic by the me of 10 years ago, or I don't need them, since they superfluously solve problems that could be solved with 5-10 lines of shell. Or, disturbingly often, both.

In fact, I'd say it is easier to find good and useful programs for Linux right now, than it is for Windows. If having 90% of the desktop market share will make people write the same kind of programs for Linux that are currently available for Windows, I'll have to decline the offer, thank you very much.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[DrXym]

If you want mass-market hardware and software to support Linux you have to make Linux a mass-market OS. If you insist that Linux should be for techical users only you confine it to that niche and substantially lower any interest companies outside that niche have in supporting it (after all, writing printer drivers for an OS that's never going to have more than 1% market share on the desktop is less profitable han telling Linux users to just buy a PostScript-compatible laser printer).

Exactly, the more accessible and usable Linux becomes, the more mainstream the support from vendors becomes. I really don't understand why anyone whines about Ubuntu aspiring to that goal. If Ubuntu is too easy, use another dist. If the GNOME desktop is too easy and consistent, rip it out and use Enlightenment, WMaker, XFCE or whatever.

Maybe some people really do enjoy living in their command prompt, spending hours learning how to build and load some kernel driver to make something work, endlessly tinkering with settings. But they are a tiny minority. The vast majority of computer users buy the computer to do stuff, be it browse the web, IM, chat, email, play games. If something is a 1 minute task in Vista or OS X then it should be in Linux. There is no excuse for making things hard aside from sheer arrogance and obstinacy.

I am glad Linux is finally maturing and that at least one dist has gotten a clue to address them. I hope Ubuntu continues to make inroads into the laptop market and capitalises on their success.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[andrikos]

Let's consider this route for GUI bugs, but for security bugs the need is more urgent and passing through Mozilla Bugzilla and official firefox release (or at least one nightly build but signed by Mozilla) is quite slow.

The same thing goes for every patch debian/ubuntu people would like to apply. There is also the possibility that some of them will not be accepted by mozilla.

On the other hand, if you consider the relatively recent fiasco with Debian's SSH makes you wonder about the whole branding thing.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[DrXym]

The only good argument for cramming linux down people's throats that I can think of is that it will foster adoption of standards. Even that doesn't satisfy me. I'm with arth1...I think linux needs more people who appreciate it for what it is, and can code. Not more MS refugees (there's enough Unix refugees as it is).

And its elitist attitudes like this that have confined Linux to a niche for so long. Why should Linux be so hard that you need coding skills to use it? Why should someone be forced to spend hours trying to do something that takes minutes to do in Windows or OS X? Why would a Linux coder even be upset that more people are using Linux? That just means your skills as a coder are in higher demand and you can get paid for working on open source.

I consider myself to be a power user and frankly the faster and simpler it is for me to configure the system the better. I didn't install it to tinker with it, but to use it. If that means the GUI lets me configure my wlan from a dialog box instead of fucking around for hours reading HOWTOs, editing config files and rebuilding modules then great.

If you find Ubuntu to be unbearably usable and friendly, install Ubuntu Server which doesn't even install X by default, or go find another dist. There are dozens of them to choose from. If the thought of even using a dist is too high brow, you can even build your own from scratch.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Anonymous Coward]

And a different user agent string, which falls fowl of badly designed browser sniffing websites.

Hotmail being a notable example...

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[strikethree]

You are entirely missing what he/she was saying. For example, Gnome has been anti-poweruser for a couple years now. They want to market to the unwashed masses and they think that removing functionality as a way to reduce complexity is the path to doing so. Well, all I can say is, "Fuck that shit."

I like having control over my operating system. It was why I first started using linux back in the .9x days. If they remove my ability to control the software, then there is no attraction in it for me.

Really, all of this is crap though. There is nothing that requires removing of functionality to reduce complexity. Better organization of controls will do that nicely. If a newb user finds themselves deep in the heart of the internals of the computer and are messing it up, so what? The computer is ultimately quite a complex device. Set it up so the user is not required to play with complexities in order to gain basic functionality and such things should happen only to the adventurous... and if they are adventurous, it is great for them to be playing around in there so they can learn.

To sum up what the OP was saying in a way we can all agree with: Stop removing functionality in the misguided attempt at catering to the lowest common denominator.

That is all.
strike

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[elrous0]

As a Microsoft supporter, I would strongly agree that Ubuntu shouldn't worry so much about getting more users. In fact, I say make it even more obscure and hard to use than it already is. It's the only way to maintain your exclusive hipness. And you want to stay cool, right?

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[nschubach]

I'd have to argue that moving people to Linux in any form is promoting just that. Competition between distros, bare or simplified. If you want all the fancy interface options offered by Ubuntu, you can use them. However, if you want to use a bare GUI, install Xfce (or even bare X) or something. Even if you want to work in the terminal, you still have that choice. I don't see why you'd be upset at a particular distribution that you don't have to use. Getting companies/people to develop on Linux in any form is beneficial to every distribution. Especially if they end up open sourcing the project so others can add in their preferred methods.

Your last statement confuses me since you can't use IE in Linux/Palm/Unicos (easily/at all) so how could someone decide what they wanted to use if a certain software company doesn't make it's applications compatible with your kernel?

Look at it this way. If you have 1000 people using Linux now and you have 10 people that think the same way you do, when you scale the user base up to 10,000, you're more likely to find some intelligence in the new crowd and at least double your available options. It won't scale up perfectly, but there WILL be more people that tend to think the same things and you may find that even though Ubuntu brought them in, your preferences will benefit from even one or two more interested parties improving the basics. Since Linux is the way it is, all distributions have a better chance of benefiting from said technology easier than porting that flashy new code editor/game/utility from Windows to Mac.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[amorsen]

Yes! Finally a fellow sufferer from Metacity/Compiz/Emerald!

I have completely given up on overlapping windows because of the problems you mention. I agree with "choice-is-bad", because noone wants to spend ages configuring their window manager, but somehow that has gotten turned into "Microsoft Windows behaviour is correct by definition". (Except of course when Windows once in a while gets something right, of course.)

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[nschubach]

Unfortunately, It was still an issue with my Mom. She was looking for a blue icon called "Internet".

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[amorsen]

Of course you can run Linux programs on Windows because Linux libraries are also cross-platform to my knowledge

There is no "of course" about that, and most Linux libraries are cross-platform as long as the platform is Unix-like. Some of them work in Cygwin, but Cygwin has less marketshare than Linux itself. A few have ports to Windows or are ports from Windows.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[amorsen]

I am more worried that it will become the new monoculture.

It is relatively easy for most OS's (even non-Unices) to provide a Linux subsystem so that Linux software works. Binary only is harder, but most Linux software is available as source. By running Linux software, they will not be doomed to reinvent the entire software library from scratch.

Anyway, the network effect is extremely strong for operating systems. If you do something very different from what everyone else does (like a secure multi-user single-address-space OS without hardware memory protection), it will always be stuck in a niche.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Anonymous Coward]

IDisplaying a EULA is not common practice in the GNU/Linux world, and displaying one isn't the best way to improve the experience.

Really, i take it youve never used java then?

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[orasio]

Still waiting for a Visual Studio-killer on Linux...

As a developer who has worked both in Eclipse and Visual Studio, I'll ask: are you insane?

Visual Studio was great!!
Up to a low 200x it was the best IDE ever.
Then, Eclipse grew up.
For professional stuff, Eclipse is several times better, works better for groups of developers, testing, building and stuff.
For small standalone forms through web projects, it might be easier to use Netbeans. Since last year, it became a great alternative.
If Java is not you cup of tea (!), Eclipse also has good support for C and PHP.
I don't think the developer software is what is missing.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[sgrbear]

Hey! You hang out here, too? And I thought you spent all your time on Linux "Newbie Help" sites telling people to RTFM!

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[JohnFluxx]

Linux is also trademarked. Would you want a EULA for every new kernel as well?

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Anonymous Coward]

"to do whatever it takes to get more users."

yup that's the bottom line regardless.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

Besides, you can always reverse engineer the Windows drivers under the DMCA interoperability exception.

Would you trust the next five years of your life to your interpretation of that law?

Courts seem to ignore the exceptions in that law - you could be in for a very painful 5 years in Federal PMITA prison!

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[SwordsmanLuke]

I haven't used Eclipse in a few years, but I'm willing to give it another shot. Tell me, though, does it have the features (either natively or via a plugin) of the ReSharper Visual Studio plugin? I've been using ReSharper for awhile and it is so useful (the ability to quickly find a specific class by name is especially helpful) I can't believe how long I lived without it.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[atraintocry]

Making linux usable isn't exactly on par with global warming.

But I hadn't thought of the fact that hardware vendors like to see people using the stuff before they support it. Which was a dumb thing to forget about.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[drew]

It shouldn't mean dumbing it down, but all too often it ends up that way anyway, because it seems the quickest way to make something easy to use is usually to simply remove all the features or options that require a more advanced understanding of the software.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[atraintocry]

It's great that Ubuntu is easy to use and install, and clearly great things are happening in that space that will benefit everybody. I just get tired of hearing "linux has to do this" or "linux has to do that". Why does it have to be anything to anybody? Standards was one reason I could come up with. OP was saying that somehow throwing a lot of ex-Windows users at Ubuntu might improve it, and I seriously doubt that. But I had forgotten that getting more users on board might get more hardware vendors on board, so in that way it does help. But it can hurt, too, as we're seeing with the Mozilla Foundation. Personally, I think sticking with official FF binaries at this point hurts Ubuntu's mission. It's more important that people get computing tasks done in an optimal way than they use specific software with a specific logo.

Bear in mind that this is all desktop linux, btw. Linux does quite well in the server market. So you get folks who catch all the buzz, want it on their desktop, but have hardware that is unsupported and they expect it all to be magic. Then they pop online and talk about how it isn't ready. Linux is more than a cheap Windows replacement. It's plenty ready.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[The Gaytriot]

I wonder how many other people didn't know that and double clicked the top left corner of their browser to see if it was true?

Damn you, all my tabs are gone :(

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Jesus_666]

In that case you use a compatible operating system or don't play games.

Or, of course, don't bitch about Linux being popular with non-geeks.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[atraintocry]

I wasn't talking about keeping things hard. Usability is a great goal.

If something is a 1 minute task in Vista or OS X then it should be in Linux.

I'm not really seeing why. It'll be great when it happens, I just don't get the people demanding it. If we're talking about bringing computing to places where they can't afford Vista Ultimate or Apple hardware, I'm with you. But we both know that's not where the complaints come from. It's people who want their wireless driver in the kernel so they don't have to screw with ndiswrapper, etc. Then they do the whole "screw it, I'm going back to Windows" spiel on here.

LAMP is by far the standard server setup. So Linux is mature enough to support half of the web servers out there. I realize desktop maturity is a little different. Trust me, I'm not against improvement in any area, and there's clearly room for improvement.

I'm annoyed for the same reason...I see some of the comments as arrogant - like people acting pissed off that their new OS isn't exactly the same as what they're used to, when no one asked them to switch. I don't code and I have no vested interest in any of it. It just annoys me how everyone thinks they know exactly what linux needs but they fail to mention why they think it needs it.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[The Gaytriot]

What I especially hate while installing software is when you can't click "I agree" until you've scrolled to the bottom of the EULA.

That's a real clever trick there.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, other people's decisions do affect you. Who's going to pay for the healthcare of everyone who's eating at McDonald's everyday? Who has to deal with all the spam we get everday b/c someone let their computer get infected? While I dislike evangelists, we do have to educate people into making the best decision for themselves.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[mpe]

The EULA is at present still considered to be binding.

IIRC EULA's are very much "untested" when it comes to their legal status. Even if the concept was found to have legal standing the actual content on an EULA is subject to the "law of the land". Specifically statute and case laws will "trump" anything in an EULA.

Just because most GNU software doesn't have a EULA doesn't mean that projects which do should have their rights undermined for the sake of zealots. Of course the EULA isn't going to be displayed if it doesn't exist.

It's not unknown for various install routines (especially under Windows) to present something as an EULA even when it in fact isn't.

Requiring that the EULA be displayed 1 time the first time it's run is hardly unreasonable.

The original article mentions that much of the text is meaningless in the context it is presented.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[orasio]

I haven't used Eclipse in a few years, but I'm willing to give it another shot. Tell me, though, does it have the features (either natively or via a plugin) of the ReSharper Visual Studio plugin? I've been using ReSharper for awhile and it is so useful (the ability to quickly find a specific class by name is especially helpful) I can't believe how long I lived without it.

Well, when changing back from Eclipse to VS (luckily, this project won't last forever, though), ReSharper was the only thing that gave me some comfort.

For me, ReSharper was a way of bringing just a little bit of Eclipse to VS.
Shortcuts are different, but very easy to learn, and follow a logic.

Plus, somehow Eclipse works more naturally at following references/inheritance. Refactoring is unbelievably solid, too. Incremental search works exactly how it should, file searches are very fast.

For anything professional, I think Eclipse is the way to go. I have been trying NetBeans in order to be able to work with less experienced people not willing/able to learn Eclipse in an adequate timeframe. The combination of both seems very promising to me for diverse teams.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Anonymous Coward]

So the choice is to write down your favorite websites or use bookmarks to remember them?? How about just remembering them, that's what I do. When I want to go to one of my favorite sites, I just type the damn address in...

The only thing I use bookmarks for is those interesting sites you occasionally come across, and want to remember for later when you can use them. But every website I go to at least once a month or more, I just remember the url.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[mpe]

Yes, perhaps, but you are not forced to agree in order to use the product. You may deny the GPL and still use the software. Any software packaged on windows which requires you to check that you accept the terms is improperly packaged.

Having a program present some text as an EULA does not make it an EULA. Any more than claiming that some French text is actually English or German. It dosn't really matter if the text in question is the GPL, a quote from the bible or some random text from Project Gutenberg. That's before you even consider that EULA's are often thrown up at install time.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

So the choice is to write down your favorite websites or use bookmarks to remember them?? How about just remembering them, that's what I do. When I want to go to one of my favorite sites, I just type the damn address in...

The only thing I use bookmarks for is those interesting sites you occasionally come across, and want to remember for later when you can use them. But every website I go to at least once a month or more, I just remember the url.

So, in short, that 'dumbing down' feature is useful to you.

Thank you. :)

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[mpe]

Maybe so, but it's still an annoyance, and it's one that will be seen very early and hurt first impressions. Also, though Windows users may be used to EULA's while installing software,

Even though at that point there cannot be an "End User", by definition.

getting one when they're actually trying to run a program is going to be jarring.

It's actually slightly less daft that at installation. But still rather pointless since there's no way for the software producer to know who the End User actually is. Let alone if they will ever have a provable case of an EULA violation.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Yvan256]

That's why well-designed software should have good default settings and an "advanced settings" tab/panel/whatever.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[CrazedSanity]

Keeping the unwashed masses away from Linux may mean less dumbing-down and all that, but it also means something else: less users. If there's not a large enough user base for a distro of Linux, it will eventually wither and die; who wants to work on software that only a handful of people are still using?

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[arth1]

Yes! Finally a fellow sufferer from Metacity/Compiz/Emerald!

I have completely given up on overlapping windows because of the problems you mention.

I find the usefulness of working with overlapping windows so much greater than the usefulness of transparency (and honestly, the rest of compiz is just eye candy). So I ditched compiz/emerald.
Which, incidentally, also allowed LBX (Low Bandwidth X) to work again, which is just great when I log in remotely.

On Windows, which I have to use every now and then, I use TXMouse to get as close to standard X Mouse behaviour as possible. It's good enough that it allows me to work with overlapping windows, although I still haven't figured out how to configure ALT+F1 to bring a window to the front in Windows. I'm not a Windows expert. If anyone knows, please tell me!

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[arth1]

That's why well-designed software should have good default settings and an "advanced settings" tab/panel/whatever.

From a support point of view, that's pointless.

Those who are daunted by preferences and having to actually make choices will go into neither "Settings" nor "Advanced Settings".
Those who have a little knowledge, and thus are dangerous, won't be stopped by one of them being called "Advanced".
Those who know what they're doing get irritated by having to look two places before they eventually find it.

The people who realise they're slightly ignorant, and would gladly change preferences but wouldn't dare going into advanced preferences are mythical creatures. They only exist in the wishes and dreams of the UI designer.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[amorsen]

I don't use Compiz, because it's too much hassle on my computer to get 3D acceleration good enough for it to work. Doesn't help though, because Metacity has the exact same problems.

Don't get me started on transparency. It's absolutely useless except as a way to indicate which window is active (and then only at something like 97% opacity). I like the cube a lot though, and the zooming. I'm a sucker for effects, as long as they're really quick and smooth.

I guess I should try a tiling window manager, but I can't be bothered to set up all my shortcuts AGAIN. So I just stick to 8 desktops on Super-Fx, with one full-screen window each.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[DrXym]

What a stupid question. Its up to the trademark holder how they protect their trademark. As it happens you do need to apply and agree to terms to sub licence the Linux trademark.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[arth1]

Don't get me started on transparency. It's absolutely useless except as a way to indicate which window is active (and then only at something like 97% opacity).

Transparency is actually useful when you use overlapping windows. You can copy text from a window below the front one, and see what you're copying through the transparency, without a need to pop the window to the front. And you can see whether there's activity in a scrolling terminal.

But that's all pointless as long as the window manager only allows you to work with Windows-style active-window-to-the-front functionality. The compiz window decorators (both emerald and gtk-window-decorator) disable the functionality that would make transparency useful.

This is what a greater influx of Windows users brings us. No, thanks, I don't call that progress.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Ilgaz]

Firefox owns 20% of browser marketshare whatever Microsoft does and how many billions they sink to IE.

EULA could be a insurance in case.

If you look at any GNU software, they come with LICENSE file, it is not very different from EULA. It is just Firefox forces user to accept their terms before running it, just to have argument of "But we said so" in a court.

What if a "hot coffee" incident hits Firefox/Mozilla? Will the rich Ubuntu founder pay for them?

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[pizzach]

If the problem is a GUI bug, why would Ubuntu need permission to fix it just on the version of FF which comes with Ubuntu? Wouldn't it be easier to open a bug in Mozilla's Bugzilla with the patch included and propagate that fix to all versions of Firefox?

I wasn't talking about fixing Firefox GUI bugs specifically. The general point was fixing non-bugs steals time from fixing real bugs.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Bullet-Dodger]

A goddamn idiotic and immature rebranding, that is. The grandparent poster was suggesting doing it right.

Why is it a goddamn idiotic and immature rebranding? And what would doing it right entail? Sure, it's a dumb name but as he said, just call it "Web browser" in the UI.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[awrowe]

Probably not much use to you in Australia, although this promotion was run in Australia at least once before. Not sure whether it is running now over there tho0ugh, I looked but couldn't find it.

If you know a student of have one in the house, you could always have a look at The Ultimate Steal (US Version) or the same thing in the UK.

Wouldn't normally recommend MS software for any reason, however I will probably be taking advantage of this one for my stepson, who is just starting to go through the interesting stage at high school, where he discovers what homework is and starts to realise the value of study. Fortunately, I'm also studying almost full time at the Open University, so shouldn't have too much trouble getting a copy. Since Cisco brought out a linux version of Packet Tracer, I don't need no stinkin' Microsoft on any of my computers.:=)

Of course, you could also tell her to just install the windows version of OOo 2.4 on her computer.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Anonymous Coward]

too much fragmentation for that, still kdevelop is not that bad. also come with a qt designer.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[JohnFluxx]

But not to use. What's the point in bringing up sub-licensing here?

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[DrXym]

The point of bringing it up is to show the Linux trademark is protected and so is the Firefox trademark. Each is protected in a way their respective holder feels suitable. I really don't see why why anyone is ragging on Mozilla for wishing to protect their trademark. It doesn't stop you taking the browser's source, calling it (for example) Iceweasel and doing whatever the hell you like with it. Mozilla's beef is with people who build tweaked versions of Firefox, changing the default settings (e.g. search urls, homepages etc.), and then try and palm it off as Mozilla Firefox which it isn't.

Why they show an EULA is a question you would have to ask Mozilla's legal team but having read it myself, it appears to be nothing more than saying: a) You can get the browser source at mozilla.org and build it yourself, b) by using this software you agree to the following disclaimer and limitation of liability, c) you can't mess with the trademark or reuse it for your own products. Big deal. Maybe in the light of the "outcry" they'll modify how the EULA is displayed or work to show it some other way, but it really isn't the end of the world.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Goaway]

Doing it right would entail not being immature and giving it a stupid name out of spite.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Yfrwlf]

Oh OK, I figured since it was open source they would have been mostly ported by now. ^^ Well then, I guess the Windows libraries/API is possibly the most cross-platform solution right now for some companies. Several games now target Windows/Wine including Eve, Spore, and others. (Funny that the Mac version of Spore is just the Windows version wrapped in Wine/Cider.)

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't even make sense to yourself. Of course you know that Firefox can be debranded fairly easily. And that the best user experience would be to name the browser "Internet" with a generic icon.

If it looks, works and feels familiar, people wouldn't even notice. Perhaps, they'd be even more impressed than usual because by nature humans expect the worst and are fairly forgiving.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[amorsen]

Well then, I guess the Windows libraries/API is possibly the most cross-platform solution right now for some companies.

If cross-platform means Windows+Linux+Mac on little-endian 32-bit, then yes.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Anonymous Coward]

That is ridicules. I say take it out stop making demands on the distribution of their browser (after all it was our community that made it popular not M$) and if someone wants to install it they can find the install at mozilla.org and enjoy their nice long and boring EULA.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[JohnFluxx]

You are claiming that it is reasonable to force the user to accept a EULA in order to use the program, just in the name of protecting the trademark.

I am saying that I really do not want this to set a precedent that every program with a trademark demand that the user agrees to a EULA. The linux kernel being, hopefully, an obvious example of why this is a bad route to go down. There are thousands of programs with a default linux install - it would be a nightmare if they all started showing EULAs.

It is important to show, early on, that EULAs will not be tolerated. This is not just about Firefox, but about nipping this trend in the butt early on.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Yfrwlf]

Completely agree with that aspect of the parent's post. While it is good for aesthetics sometimes to at least tuck less-used features away, you definitely should not remove the ability entirely to access those features/ideas. If Gnome was properly modular so that users could easily create plugins to do whatever they wanted basically, this would not be an issue.

Linux severely needs a heaping spoon full of modularity and APIs/standards in more areas, and systems which are not modular or built intelligently with these concepts in mind should be abandoned or made to be modular so that they can be usable and much more beneficial to everyone. I hate the fact that Gnome and KDE is even separate at all, because I believe both systems should be capable of anything if they were correctly programmed, then it would merely be what pieces were included by default or what settings were set by default that would make the difference between a power user's desktop and a minimalist's.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Yfrwlf]

Of course I meant more programs period, both good and bad. More Linux use = more programs = more for you to choose from, both command line and GUI. Linux adoption helps everyone. More hardware will work out of the box, software will be easier to install, there will be more programs with more options and features available, and they will all be easier to use because everything will undergo more testing leading to more reliability, not to mention more security because a lot more attack attempts will have been made against Linux software. You'll simply have more access and easier access as a whole to more and betterLinux software than you do now, there's nothing there to hate unless you've built up your self-esteem around being one of the few users of a particular OS. In that case there are still several out there to choose from, several of which are completely incompatible with most all programs which exist right now. I recommend Amiga as it's a pretty cool OS. ;) But yeah, good luck getting much use out of it, but if your needs are few then it may be just good enough for you.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[RotHorseKid]

"The end result then becomes better for those who don't need their hand held."

You, sir, are an Open Source Fascist. Since this is /., that might be better than being a closed source fascist, but your opinion, fascist it is.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[arth1]

Fascism is totalitarian by nature, and seeks eradication of the "lesser" ideologies.
I want everybody to choose what's best for them, and not do as I do.

I am more than happy to recommend MacOS or Windows to people, but I don't think you'll find many fascists that will happily recommend other cultures than their own.

So what was the rationale behind your names calling again, except to invoke a minor Godwin and make yourself look ignorant?

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Imagine if every application popped up an EULA the first time you ran it"

So what. It doesn't change the fact that it's free.

Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible?

[Anonymous Coward]

What the fuck are you talking about?

There are options

[pablodiazgutierrez]

The unbranded package will have the same functionality as Firefox, and Ubuntu can cut most of the ad money Mozilla gets from Google by using it as its primary search engine. I say this is a stupid move by Mozilla, antagonizing users for no apparent gain. Besides, I still prefer Konqueror.

Re:Alarming comment..... bad news for F/OSS

[Seth Kriticos]

In a way I give you right: Ubuntu never really had the attitude to be fully FOSS. They use closed source drivers and other stuff (like flash) to make the every day usage smooth withouth much hassle. I don't see the problem as long as I have the possibility to choose my OS. I'm personally using Debian, but I see that it is not suitable for most computer illiterate people. They just want it to run and some familiar (cross platfrom) software may also help them to get a better experience / transition, whatever.

Could be perfect timing for Chrome

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the timing is perfect for Chrome to hit the Linux distributions.

Dear Mozilla...

[Anonymous Coward]

... let me tell you, that you're dumb as a fistful of freeze dried fly.

Who Cares?

[Lucky75]

This is ridiculous. All they are asking is that we agree to a EULA about the brand. They even offer an unbranded one. Who cares, if all that they care about is the brand name?

Re:Who Cares?

[KGIII]

The beautiful thing is that if all the folks are unhappy they're free to fork either Ubuntu or Firefox. They won't but they're free to.

Re:Who Cares?

[fsmunoz]

FWIW Firefox is "forked" in Debian for similar reasons for a long time now. Iceweasel is Firefox without some branding.

Re:Who Cares?

[KGIII]

I get Firefox by default in Mandriva but it is an old one in the RPM database so I installed the new one. I actually usually use Opera because I'm an idiot and can't get Java (and most JavaScript) to run well in Mandriva. Meh... It works.

Re:Who Cares?

[Sancho]

Right.

Mozilla cares about branding because they're trying to maintain a product image. They don't want people patching their code and redistributing it under their brand. Debian griped about this a lot when it came up last time, and because Mozilla stood their ground, Debian forked Firefox and called it Iceweasel.

A few months later, a Debian patch to OpenSSL was found to significantly reduce entropy, to the point where keys were easily guessable.

I think that's something everyone should think about when they blast Mozilla for their branding decisions.

Re:Who Cares?

[KGIII]

So it is a good thing I'm dumb? :D

In all seriousness... Opera isn't free except as free as in beer. I use it for the above reason (on Linux) and because it actually has far fewer security vulnerabilities LISTED and it "just works." For me it is not a question of ethics, it is what works when I need it to and offers the minimal amount of risk.

Hell, I'm a MICROSOFT MVP saying, to you all and the rest of the world, that I'm a LINUX fan. I'm actually a convert. I converted to Microsoft some 14 years ago from Unix. My love for all things Linux knows no bounds. (I have a point, bear with me.) I love Linux, I run Linux 24/7 and employ people to keep it running for me as well as secure when shit hits the fan.

Here's some off topic gibberish...

"There are no viruses for Linux." So? Bullshit. There are more (yes more) vulnerabilities known for Linux at any given time than there are for any other OS and, when I say Linux, I'm not going to be so pedantic as to say just the kernel but to include everything that the average stack has attached to it. It takes skills to keep any OS secure.

If Firefox wants to display a EULA then, you know, they're probably doing what they wanted to do - to make money. Yeah... We thought it was some sort of idealistic investment in the community but we were suckered. We're gullible like that. They can do that. We can fork it. We won't, we will just bitch about it.

Canonical has every right to let the dev team and insiders make the choices. We have every right not to like it. We also, thanks to GPL, have every right to fork it. If we're that pissy then fork it... If not then show you're a dev who's unhappy or (not YOU personally but YOU generically) do something about it.

This is the truth. Hell, I'll take all sorts of down modding on /. if I have to. I've already got to wait way too many minutes between posts. It is like an incentive to actually post stuff that gets you modded down with the current system.

Folks don't like it. They think there is something else behind the door. They sit there and scream (and I think they don't do anything from here at this site except that) about all the faults they find but I see few people actually doing anything to change them. The good thing about GPL is you can pack up your fucking toys and go home.

The folks that told you that GPL was about anything other than copyright protection LIED to you. Go to the EFF site. Go read the GPL. It is *not* freedom in any sense of the word. It is about limiting rights and granting other rights. We, as a community, spent so long looking at the pretty blinking lights of freedom that we forgot what free was. Today they're the MySpace of software, nothing more. Microsoft giggles most of the time.

Now I will really digress... Winning a browser war? Ha! Microsoft doesn't WANT to win that. Why would they? They're prohibited from making any money on it by monopoly status.

Linux isn't winning shit. It occupies the spaces that no one else wants to compete in. Low cost budget hosting, serious applications that run specialized software, and the desktop of geeks across the globe.

This comes from a guy who LOVES Linux and has contributed far more than many here to the open source community. I love Linux. I love the idea of having alternative operating systems and browsers and increased competition. They don't care and you're not winning.

For those who want to mod me down then I ask only that you actually look at the things typed. I don't mind, hell I can respond faster, being negatively modded if I've said something incorrect. Search within yourself and then mod if you wanna. When you're done then post AC and justify it.

Re:Who Cares?

[Yfrwlf]

You need to know that software title A is software title A, I agree. If you modify something, and it's not an official modification, that difference should be noted, otherwise the original developers could be trying to help you fix a bug that wasn't their fault to begin with. So, yeah, it's just common courtesy and I don't think many would dispute that. If you fork a program you rename it, simple, everyone knows that. However, the EULA is a different matter, that IS the subject here, the branding is the side-effect, it's the stake that causes this issue to arise. By removing the brand, you can avoid the EULA. So, would you like to use Firefox if it pops up each time you open it with a stupid EULA, or would you not mind using the exact same browser basically only re-branded so that you don't have to? The point is, it's up to you, so I really hope that Mozilla would reverse this whole decision and stop being anal about EULAs, they're retarded and no one reads them and they get in the way. I'd be OK with clicking OK once perhaps on installation though, but not every time loading it up. If it was really open though, any licenses should be in the program files someplace and shouldn't be "in the way", like with all GPLed software apparently, and I prefer it that way.

Pop-ups are annoying and also you shouldn't have to deal with them with open source software like Firefox. I think that's the main subject here.

Iceweasel

[Anonymous Coward]

+1 for Iceweasel

zealots need a eula

[Anonymous Coward]

ali baba, the keybrd is missing!

Re:Alarming comment..... bad news for F/OSS

[JohnFluxx]

Don't you see the practical point here too? Do you really want every app and every package in Ubuntu displaying an EULA and having you agree to it?

WTF is with you people?!

[BitZtream]

Its the Firefox EULA, not one from Microsoft, Apple or EA.

Pull your heads out of your ass and stop being such fanatical 'Free' nutjobs. Its all good the require that everything follow the GPL and the 'non-freedoms' that go with it, but not anything else?

For fucks sakes its gotten so damn ludicris that there are like 50 definitions of 'free' for software. And everyone argues over which is better. Let me end it for you, Public Domain is free, nothing else is, if its not public domain it has restrictions, period.

Why is it that some people think they deserve to get everything for nothing and be able to do anything they want with it without restriction? Do this people not respect other peoples right to dictate how their software is distributed, but its okay for them to restrict their own software?

To all the people who think this is just evil, fuck off, you're never going to be happy, take some zoloft or something and get out of mommy's basement.

Re:WTF is with you people?!

[ale_ryu]

Seconded! It's a just bloody EULA for God's sake, and they aren't actually limiting your options in any way, if you don't like the EULA just download the sources and build the browser from scratch! No biggie!

Re:WTF is with you people?!

[grumbel]

Its the Firefox EULA,

Its an EULA, thats all there is to know. In the Free Software world there is no need for an EULA because if you obtained the software legally, you already have the right to use it, EULAs are only there to restrict your rights, if they don't do that, they are meaningless, if they to it then its no longer Free Software. Which is why there should never be an EULA in Free Software.

I for one like that I can install Linux on a new box and have it work and not like in Windows where I have to click through dozens of EULAs before the system gets into a usable state.

Not Epiphany

[The Fanta Menace]

Epiphany is a featureless, heap of junk. Don't go anywhere near it.

Agree to agree.

[Anonymous Coward]

I find the complaint interesting because I've noticed a trend for FOSS on the Windows platform incorporating "You agree to the GNU..." as part of installation. Why this tissy and not the others?

Re:Agree to agree.

[lattyware]

That's ironic, as the GPL specifically states you can use the software without agreeing to the GPL, it's only distributing where it applies, if I remember correctly.

Re:Agree to agree.

[JohnFluxx]

If you see that anywhere, then file it as a bug. Seriously - the GPL is not an EULA. If the user does not agree, that does not affect their right at all to use the software.

Re:Agree to agree.

[amorsen]

Just click no, it should install anyway. Otherwise the installer is broken and you should file a bug.

I can not believe the complaints in this thread

[AbRASiON]

Are you people that sad and angry that you'll complain about a ONE TIME eula popping up when opening the application?
Really now? This is a big deal / problem how exactly? Good lord, it's a EULA not a fricking activation window.

Ridiculous.

Re:I can not believe the complaints in this thread

[creepynut]

No need to fork. You can use the non-branded versions (Iceweasel, Icedove) that are available in Ubuntu/Debian/et al. There are also other builds available for most platforms of Swiftweasel, which IMO has nicer branding than the non-official builds of Firefox and Thunderbird.

Re:I can not believe the complaints in this thread

[Karellen]

Is that just one time ever? Or will you need to agree one time for each new major version (4.x)? Or for each minor version (3.1)? Or for each security patch (3.0.x)? Or how about for each Ubuntu upgrade (8.10, 9.04)? If it's just one time in total, why does my implicit agreement of the current Firefox EULA (which does exist - it just doesn't pop up by default, but I am assumed to have agreed to it by the act of using the software) not already count?

Besides, I don't *want* to have to read and understand another license. There are enough licenses out there as it is for Free Software.

I've read, and I'm pretty sure I understand, the GPL2/3, the LGPL2/3, the BSD license (2-clause, 3-clause, 4-clause and MIT variants), the Apache license, the Artistic license, and probably a couple of others which escape me right now. I've also read and understand the Debian Free Software Guidelines and what it means for a license to conform to them, and what rights I get as a user, modifier and distributor of works under them.

That's enough for me. I don't want to read and try to understand another license. Maybe if it offers me some great advantage that these other licenses don't, or if enough software is released under it that it makes it worth my while to read and understand it so that I can actually use that collection of software, then maybe. But a new EULA for a single product? Nuh-uh. Not worth my while. Much easier to just switch to a different product which uses a license that already falls under the DFSG instead.

Re:I can not believe the complaints in this thread

[John Hasler]

> Besides, I don't *want* to have to read and understand another license. There are enough
> licenses out there as it is for Free Software.

No end user ever needs to read or understand any Free Software license because no Free Software license places any restrictions on use.

Re:I can not believe the complaints in this thread

[creepynut]

Ooops! This was supposed to be in reply to a comment above, titled "Preaching to the choir"...

I guess "Preview" doesn't protect from stupidity ...

Re:I can not believe the complaints in this thread

[Karellen]

True, but I'm not just an end user. I download, makes copies of, and redistribute Free Software to my friends.

As far as end user use goes, this Firefox EULA is worse than Free Software licenses because it apparently is an EULA, and not a permission-to-redistribute license. As just an end user, I would need to read and understand the Firefox EULA merely in order to use the product.

So, in regards to the Firefox EULA, my point still stands. I don't want to have to wade through and make sense of that crap. If it offers me something new, or plenty of other software uses it, it might (just might) be worth my while. Until then, no thanks.

Re:I can not believe the complaints in this thread

[shallot]

Are you people that sad and angry that you'll complain about a ONE TIME eula popping up when opening the application?
Really now? This is a big deal / problem how exactly? Good lord, it's a EULA not a fricking activation window.

Ridiculous.

If you're seriously arguing that the low number of prompts makes any opposition ridiculous, here's a straightforward retort - imagine what it would be like if every piece of free software with a trademarked name that Ubuntu ships started popping up EULAs upon first use.

Re:I can not believe the complaints in this thread

[Anonymous Coward]

Now imagine that for every single package on your system. Not so 'ridiculous'.

Firefox is just another OS component, and I'm not making exceptions. Not one. Give me iceweasel.

Re:I can not believe the complaints in this thread

[hxnwix]

It's a betrayal of principals you neither understand nor respect.

Many developers contributed to this browser specifically to provide a non-restrictive, free, open source alternative to the commercial equivalents.

What do we get for our work? Bullshit restrictions and legalese in a motherfucking click through EULA.

Re:I can not believe the complaints in this thread

[broen]

Are you really that sad and angry that you'll complain about a NAME CHANGE of the default browser? Really now? This is a big deal / problem how exactly? Good lord, it's an application not the banning of all browsers from Ubuntu.

Everyone else here is debating the relative merits of going with Iceweasel or other forks/browsers. You're the only one complaining.

Re:I can not believe the complaints in this thread

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, and for the Debian project and others to do an end-run by calling it "iceweasel" or whatever is, IMNSHO, absolutely childish.

Mozilla has worked hard to develop Firefox, and deserves due credit. The damned stuff doesn't cost a nickle, and I for one think all this hoopla, stemming primarily from the Debian-based community, is giving Linux a black eye (or worse).

It's precisely WHY I do not, and will not, support Debian or any of its derivatives in any way, shape or form. I won't download any of them, I won't file bug reports against its many, many bugs, nor will I ever do anything to help it improve.

I've been running SuSE/openSuSE for many years now, and its beta releases are a hell of a lot more stable than Debian's so-called "stable" releases or its derivatives (such as *ubuntu) ever thought of being, regardless of what they call the browser bits they obtained from Mozilla.

When the Debian people decide to grow up, I may take another look at their effluent. Otherwise, I wish they'd just shut up and go away and silently sulk in private somewhere.

Re:I can not believe the complaints in this thread

[Sentry21]

Oh nice, they have 2.0.0.4 AND 2.0.0.5! And even a prerelease 3.0! Sign me up!

I'll stick with iceweasel, thanks.

Re:I can not believe the complaints in this thread

[CoyoteNZ]

That's starting a slippery slope,

Are you people that sad and angry that you'll complain about a ONE TIME eula popping up when opening the application?

Ubuntu has hundreds, if now thousands of different little pieces of software running it, from Large apps like Firefox, Open office, gnome, down to tine little command line utils only needed my the OS itself or people doing stuff on the command line. If they have to display one for Mozilla, then everybody could jump on the bandwagon, and you have to 'read' and click through a few thousan agrements before you even get to the desktop! Bad idea making exceptions, try to talk to them about the issues they may cause, and if a suitable agreement can't be found, use Iceweasel or another solution. Just my 2c worth :)

Re:I can not believe the complaints in this thread

[Anonymous Coward]

Sad and angry? You do know you're reading Slashdot right?

Re:I can not believe the complaints in this thread

[creepynut]

I have to be honest, I didn't even read the front page before I linked it here.
They do in fact have up to date releases (the latest 2.0 and 3.0 releases) but you have to follow the download link, which takes you to their Sourceforge page.

Re:I can not believe the complaints in this thread

[Draek]

What's ridiculous is that we're having this conversation about mandatory messages in Free Software yet again. Did anybody miss the discussion years ago about the BSD license's advertising clause? go read it, then again, then again until you understand why they're useless and completely irrelevant annoyances, and nothing more.

Re:I can not believe the complaints in this thread

[celle]

It's just like letting creationism in the schools from another slashdot story today. After finally getting rid of it, once you let it back in, you'll find it hard to keep it out.

Re:I can not believe the complaints in this thread

[Anonymous Coward]

You'll have to press that button more often than ONE TIME with a LiveCD.

Re:I can not believe the complaints in this thread

[Anonymous Coward]

A Linux distribution easily consists of 3000 or more packages. Imagine what happens if they all want you to agree to some 50 page legal contract.

Only once. No big deal.

Yeah. Right.

Re:I can not believe the complaints in this thread

[Bent Mind]

In Gentoo, if I enable the official banding, I receive the following message:

You are enabling official branding. You may not redistribute this build to any users on your network or the internet. Doing so puts yourself into a legal problem with Mozilla Foundation. You can disable it by emerging mozilla-firefox-3.0.1 _with_ the bindist USE-flag

That tells me that it is illegal to distribute Firefox to anyone. The only method open to me for redistribution, even between computers I own, is to remove the branding and rename the product. It makes community builds of Firefox illegal.

I don't use Ubuntu, so I have not seen the EULA they have attached. If it's anything like Gentoo's installation message, I can understand people being upset.

Something to think about as well, it wasn't all that long ago that all of the major distributions dropped XFree86 in favour of XOrg for similar nonsense. It would be a shame to loose the Firefox brand. Firefox has been a very public part of OSS. However, if they won't allow redistribution...

Re:I can not believe the complaints in this thread

[StringBlade]

Shortly (hopefully) Google's Chrome will come along as a EULA-free alternative to Firefox. I'm sure it's a short matter of time before Chrome extensions appear to supplement the default functionality with everyone's favorite Firefox extensions.

If you can't wait for Chrome (aside from Iceweasel already mentioned) there's a host of other browsers ready and available now (such as Midori) that work and can be used just as well as Firefox.

I see this only as detrimental to Firefox and no others. Then again, wasn't there always a EULA for Firefox when installing it on Windows?

Re:I can not believe the complaints in this thread

[AbRASiON]

Everyone else here is debating the relative merits of going with Iceweasel or other forks/browsers. You're the only one complaining.

I see you haven't looked over the posts clearly, no matter - perhaps you can try again and get back to me.

Re:I can not believe the complaints in this thread

[thepotoo]

Finally someone talking sense.

Ubuntu is about reaching the unwashed masses, and they want to use Firefox. It's not like one EULA is going to make any difference; even if every application, when you launched it, displayed a EULA would really be that bad.

It's what's said in the EULA that matters, and as many others have pointed out, Mozilla's EULA is mostly about protecting their trademark.

My point is, if you want idealism, use Debian.

Ubuntu is supposed to "just work" (and it does a good job of that), but honestly, I wouldn't object to them bundling proprietary drivers with the distribution (as in ATI, Nvidia, $wireless). I bet 99% of users just install that stuff anyway, and it would save a big pain in the ass if it was automatically installed.

Do the Kubuntu people really believe that anyone doesn't just run out and install Firefox first thing? No one actually uses Konqueror, and they should just save bandwidth and give the majority what they want (do not confuse majority with the zealots which are currently voting on Ubuntu's poll).

Wow, that really turned into a rant, sorry.

Re:I can not believe the complaints in this thread

[owlstead]

Yes, because it would mean one EULA per application. Ever installed a distribution? Counted the number of applications installed by default? Counted the number of applications that you might want to use?

Ridiculous is indeed the right word. The EULA does not state anything that is not enabled by default, by law. And if it's not, it's probably not enforceable anyway. And one big advantage of Open Source is that you do without activation. Bollocks to them if they will get me in that minefield.

Ever tried to install a few Windows machines from scratch without direct internet connection? Right. Now use a Linux distribution and see the difference.

Re:I can not believe the complaints in this thread

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes firefox any more special than gnuplot, xfig, xterm and ncftp???

Not to mention that many of those programs are already forked and forkers get big bucks while the original project starves? See ffmpeg for one example since ffmpeg is used by virtually *all* video players. How about busybox?

So what was IE in the 90s is Mozilla today. I really hope KHTML will kill friggin mozilla corporation, and all its subprojects.

Re:I can not believe the complaints in this thread

[Anonymous Coward]

The common user either looks for the blue E (you know, in the other OS) or asks where to push for using the internet.

Guess who cares that the orange icon changed in a blue icon as it did on several machines I managed at the time. (It begins with no and ends with body)
A generic icon that shows the world hints a lot of people to "press here to visit the world wide web"

Mozilla doesn't realize the competition is waiting for this to happen. No user cares that Konqueror or Epiphany based on webkit is running instead of Firefox, that is _as long it does what they want_

Google Chrome uses both engines and it also works...

In other news, Gnome will use Webkit exlusively in the future for Epiphany.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webkit

In the year 2015 Mozilla will probably only be developing a gecko engine and most people will at most say: "didn't they get a world record in a browser download once?" instead of "Firefox 8 rocks, I love the new EULA, it has moving icons!"

So instead of non-branded versions, it will not be used. Wow, Mozilla just started to kill it's own product...

Re:I can not believe the complaints in this thread

[shutdown -p now]

Really now? This is a big deal / problem how exactly? Good lord, it's a EULA not a fricking activation window.

Once you get started on EULAs (and the line of thinking that considers them legit in the first place - the one that says that end user does not own the software), activation is the next logical step.

GPL Compliance

[hax0r_this]

I know you're trying to be funny, but it really *isn't* a big deal. In fact, the GPL itself specifies that

If the program does terminal interaction, make it output a short notice like this when it starts in an interactive mode: Copyright (C) This program comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `show w'. This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it under certain conditions; type `show c' for details.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html#howto

Not only that, but as you state, no Windows user would think twice about clicking through a EULA. As a long time Ubuntu user, I myself never realized until today that there are no EULAs present.

Re:GPL Compliance

[Anonymous Coward]

As a long time Ubuntu user, I myself never realized until today that there are no EULAs present.

When you install ubuntu, there is an EULA-like message that tells the user about the licenses of the included software, and that the software doesn't have any warranty whatsoever.

Re:GPL Compliance

[coaxial]

The strange thing is. I've seen plenty of "free" programs that had click through licenses, and it was always the GPL. (Sadly, I can't point to a specific case, since once you click through, you're done. I *think* xsane had one, but don't hold me to that.) They always annoyed me because the GPL is not an EULA, it's a source and distribution license.

Re:GPL Compliance

[EvilIdler]

Notepad++ is another. Bloody annoying.

Re:GPL Compliance

[pchan-]

The difference is that the GPL *DOES NOT* require the user to agree to ANY conditions. There is no contract between the user and the developers of the program. The GPL only requires you to enter into an agreement if you distribute the program or use its source (in which case you accept the terms of the GPL), and even that does not require a EULA since the terms of the contract are enforced by copyright law.

Not only that, but as you state, no Windows user would think twice about clicking through a EULA

Most Windows users don't care that the source to their OS is closed, or that it enforces DRM and acts against their wishes. Perhaps they should.

Re:GPL Compliance

[fsmunoz]

Actually it is a big deal. That text you mention is totally different from an EULA: there is no EULA for GPL software since it merely covers redistribution and not use. Anyone can run GPL software without agreeing with anything. The "no warranty" text that should be displayed covers a totally different topic and is merely *displayed* and doesn't require any kind of agreement whatsoever.

If all the software in a GNU/Linux distribution demanded that kind of action from the user I don't know what would become of the user experience. Maybe Evolution should also ask the user for agreement to an EULA. And "bash". And "ls". And Xorg. And Window Maker. And...

Re:GPL Compliance

[fsmunoz]

That is generally an artefact of the installation framework used, generally when installing in Windows. Since they contain a screen made for EULAs most people stick the GPL in there as filling, but as you said it's not an EULA and *doesn't require any kind of agreement for mere use*. At least some packages merely present an "Ok" button and not a "Agree/Don't agree" set, which is just wrong.

Re:GPL Compliance

[Vexorian]

Exactly what's the relation between that GPL paragraph and the whole thing we are talking about?

WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS

There, I just quoted a part of the GPL out of context.

Re:GPL Compliance

[SanityInAnarchy]

That's not an EULA, it's a notice. Roughly equivalent to having Help->About in a GUI program.

In fact, a lot of people treat the EULA as a license, and put it in a click-wrap, which is actually pretty stupid -- if I really don't want to comply with the GPL, all I have to do is download the source code, remove the click-wrap, and recompile it for myself.

The GPL doesn't restrict anything -- it's just very careful about which rights it grants.

Re:GPL Compliance

[shaitand]

'Not only that, but as you state, no Windows user would think twice about clicking through a EULA. As a long time Ubuntu user, I myself never realized until today that there are no EULAs present.

Displaying a license agreement is not the same thing as displaying a EULA. The problem isn't that you have to click "I agree" before you can use the program. The problem is that EULA's attempt to use a contract to allow the copyright holder to assert rights and restrictions that copyright law says rests with the user.

The reason you see no EULA's in free software is that free software relaxes copyright restrictions and certainly doesn't attempt to usurp the rights that already belong to the end-user via a EULA!

Re:GPL Compliance

[Anonymous Coward]

Just displaying that notice is not the same as requiring the user to accept the license before using the software. (Then again you don't have to agree with the GPL to use the software, since it only applies to distributing the software to others.)

Re:GPL Compliance

[Yfrwlf]

Thank you! I think you answered my question I had about EULAs. So the difference here then is that the Mozilla license that Firefox uses allows EULAs to be presented, or at least leaves it open as for if they are allowed or not, but the GPL specifically states that there is only the GPL and nothing else, you can't come along and tack on these extra licenses for users or whateverthecrap you want to, you're only stuck with that SINGLE license and that's it? I'm kind of interested in possible loopholes in the Mozilla license then because if their license leaves the door open to additional licenses, couldn't those licenses then impose on extra restrictions that weren't included in the "normal" one? Perhaps I should just view it as a change in the license for the program though, and everyone should just look at Mozilla as having officially changed their license in a sense. In that case, Iceweasel, if it has a less restrictive license essentially, and because clicking OK to a EULA every time I wanted to load Firefox would be freaking annoying, I might have to switch. =/

Re:GPL Compliance

[ISayWeOnlyToBePolite]

Is this a troll? Click the link and scroll up "END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS", what do you think that means in context?

Re:GPL Compliance

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a big difference between that message (it informs the user of something that is true whether they are informed or not), and an EULA which requires the user to waive rights that they would otherwise have, in order to use the software. Remember that the A in EULA stands for "agreement". The paragraph you quoted from the GPL is an informational message that tells the user what to expect, but doesn't require them to agree to anything.

Re:GPL Compliance

[Anonymous Coward]

GPL is not EULA.
GPL is a licence, it is an acquisition of permissions.
EULA is a user agreement, it is a promise of surrendering rights that user is forced to sign up.

BTW, can I claim that I know nothing about EULA text and I just clicked button "Accept", just "to make it work", i.e. for the sake of compatibility?

Re:GPL Compliance

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop confusing copyright with EULAs

Re:GPL Compliance

[Hucko]

Yeah, I never got why the programmers didn't put a "This is gpl software... there is no restrictions on use, just distribution. We have to put this here because of the installer. One day we'll write our own but currently that's not our itch." instead of the gpl. I vaguely remember one developer did do something similar, but that was on Windows and it was shareware software.

Re:GPL Compliance

[Dan541]

or that it enforces DRM and acts against their wishes. Perhaps they should.

What DRM?
I've never encountered any in Vista :)

No, it's time that someone sees this through

[Anonymous Coward]

Distributions don't use other projects' names as trademarks. They use the names as descriptions, like Amazon uses trademarked names to describe what you are buying. Do you have to click through an MS EULA before Amazon sells you a copy of Windows? Well, neither should you have to click through a Mozilla EULA before Ubuntu gives you Firefox.

Defending a trademark is one thing, being a dick about it is something else entirely.

Re:No, it's time that someone sees this through

[hedwards]

Flamebait much?

Trademark law allows people to use the trademark when referring to a product. I can use the mark "Windows XP" for example when I'm referring to the MS product without permission of any sort. But, you must be referring to the product, not something which is similar to the product unless authorized to do so.

The difference is that when Amazon is doing it they are selling the product and the person would get the EULA when they open the box and agree. Amazon is just the distributor of the software, not involved in the licensing between the purchaser and the developer. And more importantly Amazon doesn't strip the EULA or modify the product.

Trademarks are often used as a means of consumer protection. Recently I got a new job with a new insurance company. The new insurer's name contained the name of my previous insurance company. Now with trademark enforcement, I know that they have to be affiliated or in some fashion licensed to use the mark. Without it, they could just be using the mark as a means of tricking people.

I'm as big a fan of Mozilla and Firefox as anyone,

[MMC Monster]

but this is a bit much.

I remember when Mozilla first decided to add an EULA to Firefox, and the coders weren't sure what the point was, except that a lot of other Windows software also had them.

My worry is, is this going to extend to the Firefox that is on the live CD (which will affect people more, due to the limitations of running anything on a live CD)?

I think the Mozilla guys are asshats about this. I'm surprised that they felt this was absolutely necessary.

Looks like the lawyers have taken over mozilla.org.

Calling Unbuntu hypocritical will loose me Karma..

[Alpha232]

But...

I neither agree or disagree and shall only post one simple fact.
-----
/base-files-4.0.1ubuntu5.8.04.2/etc# cat motd

The programs included with the Ubuntu system are free software;
the exact distribution terms for each program are described in the
individual files in /usr/share/doc/*/copyright.

Ubuntu comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by
applicable law.

To access official Ubuntu documentation, please visit:
http://help.ubuntu.com/
-----

'nuff said.

EULA summary

[Restil]

1. We're letting you use the software. Have fun.
2. If you don't want to use the software, don't.
3. We need to protect our trademarks, so if you change something and redistribute it, don't call it Mozilla or Firefox.
4. No warranty, get over it.
5. We're not responsible for anything that goes wrong. This actually is just a paraphrase of section 4, and like section 4, we've stated it in ALL CAPS, so you'll be sure to pay attention to it.
6. There might be laws about sending this software out of the country. Try to obey them.
7. If you're using this in a US government environment, there are certainly many laws that will regulate its use. Please pay attention to them.
8. We're doing it the California way, the UN will not be involved (thank goodness), this agreement is written in English, you can give this (unmodified) license and product to someone else, and we won't mind.

There. The important parts.

-Restil

Re:EULA summary

[John Hasler]

There is nothing there that requires agreement. It's a notice, not a contract.

Re:EULA summary

[Artuir]

With all the fuss Slashdot is making over this, you'd think it WOULDN'T be the year of Linux on the desktop! All of your geek plans ruined, guys.

Sucks, doesn't it? This EULA is going to change the entire game! Oh well, back to the drawing board.

Re:EULA summary

[Legion_SB]

There is nothing there that requires agreement. It's a notice, not a contract.

Exactly. Which means what we have right here is a good ol' fashioned straw man slaughter.

If this was called a "trademark notice" instead of an "EULA", we wouldn't be having this discussion. But instead, we've got an army of people whippin' themselves into a frenzy at the sight of "EULA" that they're ranting and raving without knowing WTF they're actually ranting and raving about.

Re:EULA summary

[shutdown -p now]

If it's not an EULA, then why call it an EULA?

It's no secret that F/OSS community is largely negative about the very concept of EULAs.

Re:There's a bug in Bugzilla for this

[Randle_Revar]

Vote cast!

What's the REASON for the EULA?

[Suzuran]

If the reason for the EULA is to keep me from making backup copies or owning my own works created via the software, I object.

If the reason for the EULA is to keep me from embedding spyware in the software and trying to distribute my trojanized version as the legitimate version (or an "enhanced" version of the legitimate version), I do not object.

Given the frequency with which novice users are told to replace IE with Firefox on Windows platforms, if the second case were not explicitly forbidden by license, it would be common practice by evil types wishing to exploit the user community and internet at large for their own personal profit.

If taking steps to stop evil behavior that damages the internet at large makes Firefox non-free-software to RMS and his followers, I would consider that to be an acceptable trade-off.

Re:What's the REASON for the EULA?

[BitZtream]

If the reason for the EULA is to keep me from making backup copies or owning my own works created via the software, I object.

If the reason for the EULA is to keep me from embedding spyware in the software and trying to distribute my trojanized version as the legitimate version (or an "enhanced" version of the legitimate version), I do not object.

Those are part of the distribution license, not the EULA.

For firefox, the EULA simply informs you that you must comply with the law, they aren't responsible for anything that happens while you use the software, and that some data about your browsing is sent to the anti-phishing servers if you use that feature. There is also some statements about goverment users which I didn't bother to read myself as it doesn't apply to me.

This EULA is actually useful in this case and actually tells you some of the potentially bad things that may happen by using Firefox.

Re:What's the REASON for the EULA?

[John Hasler]

EULA stands for End User License Agreement. What you describe is a notice. It is neither a license nor an agreement and requiring the user to "agree" to it makes no sense.

Re:What's the REASON for the EULA?

[jmpeax]

Users will be told that their use of the software is only allowed given their acceptance of, and agreement to abide by, the terms of the EULA (e.g. that Mozilla are not liable for what the software does to their computer).

If users disagree with the terms, or aren't willing/able to abide by them, they won't be entitled to legally use the software.

Re:first post

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

eat my ass you homos

You're requesting a bunch of males intimately interact with your ass. Everybody else is the 'homo'?

OH. MY. GOD...

[Anonymous Coward]

A EULA? I'm never going to use Firefox again. How dare they? I'm going to try to run Internet Explorer in a VM just to spite them. If that doesn't work, I'll use Retawq.

Ah, the dreaded EULA!

[Puffy Director Pants]

Where you might just be agreeing that they're not responsible if you cause a Global Thermonuclear War by using the browser. Seriously, the point of the EULA is not to restrict the user as far as I can tell. It's to protect the Mozilla Foundation.

Ubuntu Brainstorm link

[Anonymous Coward]

There's also an Ubuntu brainstorm item for this: http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/13201/

Re:Ubuntu Brainstorm link

[Tubal-Cain]

Why did you post anonymously? An extra mod point needs to be expended to make your post visible.

Re:Ubuntu Brainstorm link

[Anonymous Coward]

Why did you post anonymously? An extra mod point needs to be expended to make your post visible.

The fault lies with the Slashdot conversation system, not me.

So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ubuntu needs Firefox there to make it easier for switchers. And it needs to be called Firefox, since I have no idea what IceWeasel is, where I may already know what Firefox is. Oh the horrors of having to click on an accept button for an Eula.

So its fairly simple, do whatever you need to get Firefox in Ubuntu.

Who's laughing at Iceweasel now?

[smchris]

Well, yeah. But they had a point, didn't they?

Swiftfox

[danhm]

What about Swiftfox? I've been using it over regular Firefox for quite some time now.

Re:Swiftfox

[Ash-Fox]

What about Swiftfox? I've been using it over regular Firefox for quite some time now.

It asks you to agree to a EULA when you start it for the first time in a Linux distro.

You MUST protect your trademark or you lose it.

[Russ Nelson]

Man, oh man, I do NOT understand the problem here. If you want the government to protect your name, you have to play by their rules. One of the rules is that you MUST, MUST, MUST control the quality of the software distributed under that name. Whether you like it or not, Mozilla feels that they must use a EULA to protect the quality of software named Firefox(tm).

Don't like it? Run Iceweasel, whatever the hell that is. It may be something, it may be nothing, you have no idea because they're not defending it as a trademark.

Trademarks are perfectly compatible with Open Source and Free Software. Don't like Mozilla's rules for calling it Firefox? Fine. Call it Iceweasel and you then become responsible for the quality (or not) of the software.

Re:You MUST protect your trademark or you lose it.

[John Hasler]

> If you want the government to protect your name, you have to play by their rules. One of
> the rules is that you MUST, MUST, MUST control the quality of the software distributed
> under that name.

There is no such requirement. You must "police" your trademark, but that merely means that you should sue anyone who uses it as a mark in trade without your explicit permission. The quality of that which you authorize is irrelevant.

> Don't like it? Run Iceweasel, whatever the hell that is. It may be something, it may be
> nothing, you have no idea because they're not defending it as a trademark.

Bullshit. I know exactly what I am getting when I type "sudo apt-get install iceweasel" and it has nothing whatsoever to do with trademarks.

Re:You MUST protect your trademark or you lose it.

[shutdown -p now]

The problem here is that you do not need an EULA to protect a trademark. Hundreds of other open source projects, some of them with a far larger market share (e.g., Linux itself) are trademarked, have successfully defended the trademark, have lawyers to do so, and never required an EULA for that purpose. There is no reason for Firefox to be an exception.

First time clicks...

[PhotoGuy]

Another poster points out how benign the actual agreement is; so the upshot of this is a first-time clickthrough.

Why haven't people revolted against the "you're submitting a secure form" for the first time or "you're navigating to an insecure site" for the first time warnings and crap that Mozilla and others have had for ages. They're *far* more annoying than an Eula, IMHO, as there seems to be a few of them...

Such a non-issue, I doubt it'll hurt them seriously. And for those seriously freaked out, Iceweasel is an easy workaround, that makes everyone happy.

best place: In the default homepage

[master5o1]

A not intrusive and well displayed EULA should be in the default homepage of ubuntu's firefox. Just like any other browser's EULA should be -- in the 'run once' page.

Free as in time

[derrickh]

Wow... you guys really have nothing to do on a weekend do you? Seriously, -this- is what you're up in arms about? Go outside, see a movie, get some ice cream. Because honestly, this is really really sad.

D

Ubuntu has a license, too

[Anonymous Coward]

...they just don't tell you a lot about it. what's interesting is their license says that some of the software it distributes as a part of Ubuntu may have a license agreement associated with it. it may be an open source license, it may not, the onus is on the user to find and read the license, and by using the software, the user implicitly agrees. there are also very similar terms to what's in the Mozilla license, so maybe the question is a little bigger than just Firefox? The legal page is worth a read, in any event, as use of Ubuntu implies consent to the terms, which aren't even presented.

from the Ubuntu Legal page:

Use of Ubuntu software

Your use of any software obtained from this site is subject to the terms of any license agreement provided with the software. Some of these agreements incorporate the terms of the GPL or other open source licences. Please read these agreements before installing and using the software; by installing and using the software, you will have accepted the terms of the agreements.

Free beer? Where do I sign?

[ancientt]

Most people who hear of "free software" hear it in the same context you hear about free trials, free introductory period, free fries with the purchase of a regular entree, or free beer if you sign up for our newsletter. People think of free as "meaning no payment necessary if you agree to something else." This isn't even misleading, since once they hear the "catch" is that you typically have allow redistribution of any source code you happen to write, their first thought is "what is source code?" and it's shortly followed by "suckers!"

In context, where people regularly discuss Open Source Software, the term free means "probably GPL, but maybe just some other common OSS license." For clarity, I usually refer to OSS, or even Open Source Software to make sure that people understand my intent, but expecting a community that regularly discusses GPL and Apache licensed software to switch to something more complex is a little overoptimistic.

On the good side, most OSS is Free as in price as well, and people do like free stuff.

OpenOffice also does this crap

[pembo13]

I don't see the point of an EULA on GPLed software, sorry -- this is at best a a bug.

Choice

[motang]

I say give the user the choice to take off Epiphany/Ice Weasel if they are installed by default and have the user install Firefox if they want to. I would rather Canonical go with Iceweasel than Firefox as it is more compatible with Firefox.

Re:I'm as big a fan of Mozilla and Firefox as anyo

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not surprised that Mozilla has this stance at all.

Firefox was originally called Phoenix, then Firebird; each name was ditched after some other company got all angry and litigious. With "Firefox" they trademarked it to save themselves from getting burned again; this action is in line with that end.

Am I missing something?

[moniker127]

I dont understand why this is such a big deal. Ubuntu should just display the license. Users will click accept, and continue on their merry way. What would an EULA really DO that is so life changing?

Re:Am I missing something?

[Groggnrath]

What would an EULA really DO that is so life changing?

It's a matter of principal. Some people don't like to click a EULA because that means they confirm the software is not their's to tweak or change. Some people feel this way, even if they never intend to change or tweak the program. It's a question of absolute freedom vs. conditional freedom.

Re:Am I missing something?

[moniker127]

Well, forgive me if I am mistaken, but isnt firefox closed source? If it is closed source (which i'm not really sure of to be honest), dosnt that mean it ISNT theirs to change? Companies have to cover their asses legally. The only thing Eulas do is prevent lawsuits against mozilla for people's computers crashing.

Re:Alarming comment..... bad news for F/OSS

[stinerman]

Due to the perverse aberration which is copyright law, you require a license to use a program.

This is incorrect. No license is required for use as the ordinary operation of a computer program is given an exemption under copyright law. If I write a program and give you a copy, you do have the right to use it without any special license. You do not have the right to make derivative works, modify it, give others copies, etc.

However, copyright does not restrict companies from using contract law in the dissemination of their products. It just so happens that *everyone* uses EULAs in proprietary software; you can't get a copy of a program from a company without agreeing to the license, but the license is by no means required.

You can even put a EULA on a book if you want, but we wouldn't stand for that (or would we?). For some reason we stand for it when it comes to software.

Don't forget...

[Anonymous Coward]

That Mozilla has been burned on this. Twice.

They want to avoid having to make ANOTHER name change (remember Phoenix or Firebird, anyone?) and this EULA is to pretty much do that.

Who needs a EULA to enforce a trademark?

[phr1]

Coca-Cola is one of the most heavily enforced trademarks in the world. That doesn't mean I have to accept a EULA every time I open a can of it. I don't see why Firefox is different from that.

Re:Who needs a EULA to enforce a trademark?

[Svartalf]

Indeed. I see this as being analogous to that very situation.

This EULA is silly and it's come time to point this out to them by doing something they didn't expect, much like the Debian community did with it back when they had issues with it themselves.

Fewer idiots using Linux

[nurb432]

You mean back to the good old days when the kernel could barely self-host and you had to bit edit to get things to boot off a IDE hard drive?

Ah, those were the days.

Re:Fewer idiots using Linux

[the_B0fh]

Sorry, your uid is not small enough for you to reminisce about days that far back, just as mine won't let me reminisce about PDP-11.

Re:Fewer idiots using Linux

[ozmanjusri]

Sorry, your uid is not small enough for you to reminisce about days that far back

I have a higher UID than the PP, but cut my first code on punchcards and still have some large chunks of that Cyber 180 under my house (Oooh look, you can count each bit of memory).

Slashdot is not the entire geek world. Some of us clung to the fragments of usenet for far too long...

Re:Fewer idiots using Linux

[chris_sawtell]

Well I do believe that my age and UID qualify me to comment about the days of yore, and, with hindsight, I can say, without a shadow of doubt, that it's a real tragedy that the "PC" did not evolve from one of: the PDP-11; the VAX; the 68000; or indeed the AT&T 3b series. All these are vastly superior architectures to that miserable waif called 8086 and her misbegotten offspring which we are condemned to suffer on our laps and desks for at least another decade or three.

After some 27 years it's time for us all to have the choice of a decent processor running quality software which doesn't suck.

Re:Fewer idiots using Linux

[the_B0fh]

It's called "a joke", hence the self reference to PDP-11. But I'm still on usenet. I miss Archie and Veronica sometimes.

Re:Fewer idiots using Linux

[TheSpoom]

Man, I fully expected to see a cascading reply frenzy from lower and lower UID users. You're getting lazy, guys!

Re:Fewer idiots using Linux

[Goldberg's Pants]

See if you can mention some other archaic internet tools. Go on, GOPHER IT!!!

Re:Fewer idiots using Linux

[Hucko]

They're dead Dave, they're all dead.

Re:Fewer idiots using Linux

[the_B0fh]

Apparently there are modders who can't read and understand a joke. Do we really have to write for a 4th grade audience here?

Re:Fewer idiots using Linux

[Improv]

And some of us used both... :)

Re:Fewer idiots using Linux

[the_B0fh]

Gopher?! How do I find that on BitNET?

Re:Fewer idiots using Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

They're dead Dave. Everyone is dead. Everyone is dead, Dave.

Far more sinister

[ancientt]

Before you even get to install the OS, or use it for the first time if preinstalled, you get a prompt "This is the GPLv2 which you must agree to in order to use most of the software on this CD or system.
The eighteen tabs above represent all the other licenses required by any software on this CD. None of them will keep you from being able to use and modify the source code. None of them require any payment. You may agree to or decline them individually, or select All here. [All][Agree to GPLv2 and Next]"

Eighteen is of course, a random number I picked to represent what would require actual research on behalf of a distributor. If there are far more (unlikely) then they could be subgrouped into "Free to use, redistribute only with restrictions" and "Free to use, free to redistribute only with credits" and "Free to use, redistribution requires other arrangements."

I've seen some similar agreements required for installation of various distributions and I know there is at least one, usually more, required for installation of a Windows system. We're not talking really onerous requirements here. By getting the agreements up front, at installation, Ubuntu could cut out almost all the hassle as they decide to use other software with standard license agreements.

Oh, and not to let a nit go unpicked, ls and cd are part of bash, so even if in some crazy world you could get to the point where you had to agree to a EULA before launching bash, you wouldn't have to agree to it again to run other portions of the same program.

Re:Far more sinister

[the_B0fh]

Well, maybe they can preauthorize the EULA.

******
YOU HAVE ALREADY AGREED TO THIS EULA...blah blah blah
******

What makes it more interesting, everytime you use Knoppix, you have to go through 500 EULAs.

Re:Far more sinister

[Daengbo]

This is the GPLv2 which you must agree to in order to use most of the software on this CD or system.

Except that you don't have to agree to the GPLv2 in order to use the software.

Re:Far more sinister

[Anonymous Coward]

ls is likely implemented as a builtin, but it exists as a program in /bin as well. cd is the only program that logically must exist as a builtin.

Meaningless

[Toonol]

Firefox displaying the EULA is pretty ridiculous, since the GPL isn't an EULA. It's as if the Mozilla foundation figured "Microsoft does it. Apple does it. Opera does it. We have to do it!"

Even if they don't have an EULA, and the GPL pretty clearly indicates they can't have a meaningful EULA, they can at least 'pretend' to have a EULA like the 'big boys' do. It's like a corporate inferiority complex. I've been losing a lot of faith in the Mozilla foundation. They're going in the wrong way, emphasizing fluff and bloat.

Plus, awesomebar.

Re:Meaningless

[Ash-Fox]

Even if they don't have an EULA, and the GPL pretty clearly indicates they can't have a meaningful EULA

Firefox is MPL, not GPL.

Re:first post

[Anonymous Coward]

No, he's just addressing the homos. The rest of us can safely ignore this message, without worrying that we missed anything important.

Why Firefox?

[Anonymous Coward]

Debian doesn't need Firefox, neither should Ubuntu.

They are bloody unlikely to make the

[phr1]

Google disclosure an "option" since Mozilla's revenue comes from Google payments for the traffic. They are not going to shut that source of revenue down.

I think the answer for Ubuntu is to reject the EULA and compile a browser that makes the Google disclosure opt-in, and is called something other than Firefox.

Seamonkey?

[tonytraductor]

What about Seamonkey? I've made it the default browser, mail client, irc client, html editor for Linguas OS (not that other tools can't be added, of course). Kills several birds with one monkey. Works great. Are they going to ask for a eula for Seamonkey?

Opera on Ubuntu shows EULA after install

[Easy2RememberNick]

I use Ubuntu and while reading this post I thought to myself maybe it's time to start using Opera, so I installed it and the very first thing that appeared was their EULA! Doh!

uh

[/dev/trash]

these people need a damned clue by four. What does clicking magically make Firefox IE?

Re:uh

[Groggnrath]

What does clicking magically make Firefox IE?

Yep. When you click that EULA, you download activex and run anything M$ deems acceptable automatically.

Once again, it's a matter of principal, not anything more. I'm still going with FF in my next install, but I do get where the EULA hate comes from. "Blah blah, slippery slope, blah blah".

Crazy

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you imagine if the 20,000 software projects all requested the same thing that mozilla is requesting? I would love to sit there and click through a million eulas for every part of the installed system.

NOT!

Re:Crazy

[hackel]

This is a very valid point, and should be modded up. Every software author and project is entitled to the same rights Mozilla is asking for. A better solution needs to be created, such as a single catch-all "no warranty" EULA one must agree to when installing a distribution for the first time, that applies to all packages within that distribution's repository.

Perhaps something along the line of a "General Public EULA" that software authors could choose to adopt. I'm not entirely sure how this differs from the license in general, however.

Not really informative...

[Svartalf]

The reality is, the EULA covers the Trademark. The only time this comes into play as a licensing requirement is when someone tries to USE the name "Firefox" in conjunction with a web browser.

End users will just simply USE the product in question. Distributors are a different matter. You don't need END USERS to agree to not misuse their trademark- they don't really count all that much and it's very, very silly to make someone do it other than as a vehicle to FORCE the distributions to package it precisely as the Firefox team want it to be done because it's very annoying for the EULA piece to begin with.

Re:first post

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, no, it's pretty clear he's lookin for a lil action.

Completely different

[10101001 10101001]

You do realize that what the GPL says is completely different, right? You don't have to agree to the GPL to use GPL software: the person who gave you the software does. Regardless of whether EULAs are valid, the GPL doesn't try to push itself on the users. It does push itself on redistributors, but then that's the only legal way to grant redistribution without revoking the copyright on the software completely. In short, the GPL notice is an advertisement. It's not an attempt to force a contract.

Ideology over practicality

[Chris Tucker]

Major Fail.

There's always Seamonkey

[achurch]

I was really happy with Firefox pre 1.0, and have steadily gotten less happy. I still use it because I'd rather have my nuts crushed than go back to IE.

Then how about Seamonkey? It's got all the goodness of the Mozilla browser without the Windowsy handholding and lecturing that's crept into Firefox over the versions.

Re:first post

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm thinking that might require a EULA.

one word

[patiodragon]

iceweasel

Oh dear

[horza]

One of the reasons I avoided Java and anything related for so long (still do out of habit) was all that EULA nonsense you had to go through to install it. If Firefox is going down this route then I definitely think Ubuntu should withdraw it from the standard distribution. Nothing to stop them listing it as a recommended application, but these days I expect to be able to install an OS and boot up a browser without any hassle. So if Firefox is going to be taken out of Ubuntu what is going to replace it?

Phillip.

Don't forget...

[Anonymous Coward]

...to pay your $699 licensing fee you cock smoking teabaggers!

I've been

[Gr8Apes]

I've been twittered. Hooray!

I don't recall seeing any of that verbage in the EFF or GPL.

Or even better

[Anonymous Coward]

Vote on the Ubuntu Brainstorm: http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/13201/

There are links there for the Launchpad bug report too.

What a bunch of losers you clowns are.

[FlyingGuy]

You get a World Class browser for free as in you don't have to pay one red cent for it. They have to put notice up to ensure they can defend their Trademark in a court of law. They have to put up notice so they can keep dipshits who decide to use to run a fucking Nuclear Reactor from taking the to court ie:NO WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, and other such matters and you asshats bitch because you have to click accept? Give me a fucking break, talk about a bunch of ungrateful swine.

On the meantime,

[Vexorian]

Should probably do something about OpenOffice portable (windows) showing the GPL as if it was an EULA when you intall it...

Once isn't enough - I want it every 5 minutes

[vandan]

Only showing an EULA once is ridiculous.

1) As many have pointed out, most people will 'click-through' the 1st time they see a license, not reading it at all. Showing the license multiple times, maybe each startup, or maybe every 5 minutes, helps to ensure that users know their obligations as users, and don't infringe on Mozilla's God-given trademark.

2) What happens on internet Kiosks, libraries, schools, etc? You can't only show the EULA once, as the sys admin will be the only one to know of their obligations, and none of the real users will know.

3) With so much pop-up advertising in web CONTENT, is it really too much to ask for our web browser to start demanding some recognition as well?

I KNOW SOME PEOPLE ARE ALSO PISSED OFF AT MOZILLA'S USE OF ALL-CAPS IN THEIR LICENSE, BUT HONESTLY, WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT IF IT SLOWS DOWN READING A BIT AND MAKES IT LOOK LIKE YOU'RE REALLY FUCKING SERIOUS ABOUT YOUR EULA, AS MOZILLA CLEARLY ARE?

I therefore argue for an EULA popup every 5 minutes.

Of course I myself will no longer be using Firefox. Back to konqueror I suppose. It would be good if someone would write some Gtk2 wrappers for webkit.

Re:Once isn't enough - I want it every 5 minutes

[Philip Shaw]

Pretty much every open source licence I can think of off-hand uses all caps for the non-warranty: the LGPL/GPL, MPL, LPPL, BSD, MIT. Even Microsoft and Apple do the same thing in their disclaimers of liability in their EULAs. I can't see any reason for people to get upset that Mozilla are following a convention accepted by everyone else, especially since anything Microsoft and RMS can agree on is probably a good idea.

Re:Once isn't enough - I want it every 5 minutes

[Ivan Todoroski]

It would be good if someone would write some Gtk2 wrappers for webkit.

They have: Midori Web Browser.

EULA my *zz. A $20 fee seems appropriate

[noshellswill]

Since wandering packs of byteboyz will never produce a superior Ubuntu, we may as well pay $20/y for the whole SW kit. That will eliminate religious fanatics from among Ubuntu lusrs and ensure just payment to designers/coders/investors. Looks like about $200m/y .

And this is why you FAIL!

[Anonymous Coward]

Want to know why Open Source and Free software is not being adopted as much as it should? THIS is the reason. Instead of spending time and energy on building great software you waste your time on politics and bickering among ourselves. The classic flame e-mails on mailing lists, project forking, project renaming is just a waste of time and confuses the average user you are looking to get using your software! It annoys your average Enterprise users who don't share your "free" idealism but might be willing to use your software.

Microsoft is continues to succeed because they know how and when to pick their battles and how to compromise. If the Open Source community ever learns this skillset they will be a force to be reckoned with!

Forgive me for not understanding, but...

[Cooldrew]

...Why is it no longer "Free Software?" It's still free, isn't it? I'm being serious here. I honestly don't understand why there's a difference. Firefox is still free and open-source, even though it has a EULA. Could someone explain, to someone who's never used Linux in their life?

Enigmail not working with Iceape

[RandySC]

I have been using Debian for many years. Enigmail is one of the greatest packages. It integrates GPG with Seamonkey and Thunderbird. I used it for years with the Mozilla Suite and then Iceape (Debian rebranded Sea Monkey Suite). Recently, after an update, it stopped working with Iceape. Many of us have discussed this in the bug reports, but fixing it seems like a low priority. I am thinking of switching to pure Sea Monkey just to get it back.

You're wrong

[celtic_hackr]

1. License Grant - This license gives you the right to use the executable provided by Mozilla Corp.

Once one legally acquires software, one is legally allowed to use it as per the terms of copyright laws in most countries. Permission from the vendor is not required.

2. Termination - if you breach this license, S1 is voided.

This is not a right the vendor is legally able to extend under the copyright act. If the vendor seeks this right, they must engage in a legally binding contract with the recipient prior to sale or transmission.

Several court cases testing the GPL have found that both 1 and 2 are enforceable. Still, a shame, now I suppose at my next upgrade, I'll have to install a different browser, as I will not click accept on any EULA. At least not until the courts realize these should not be legally enforceable.

Sorry.

[celtic_hackr]

GPL is probably considered a redistribution license, but if someone runs afoul of it, it revokes the license a\nd thus is also a EULA. I know, sounds like a stretch, but remember you have to consider that we are talking about lawyers and judges here. They live in a different world where words don't necessarily mean what we might think they mean. I sure wish NYCountryLawyer would comment on this. He'd have the right spin.

IceWeasel

[Vladus2000]

I use both Windows and Ubuntu at home and work. The idea that firefox is nearly blackmailing Ubuntu this late in the release cycle with a EULA is enough to make me stop using Firefox altogether. If someone starts maintaining an up to date Iceweasel for Windows, I will start using this. Send Mozilla a message that this is not acceptable.

Re:There's a bug in Bugzilla for this

[Hal_Porter]

Maybe if a few people vote for this bug, it will bring it to the attention of whoever thought it was a good idea in the first place...

You should post this on /b/ too. Everyone knows the best way to win an argument on the internet is to call for /b/lackup from people who won't bother to check up on the other side of the argument.

Annoying.

[Greyor]

My first thought: What the fuck IS this shit?

I don't remember ever having to agree to a EULA with Firefox; I thought the licence was to be found elsewhere and the guidelines only applied if you were redistributing or modifying builds yourself. It all seems quite strange, because I thought Mozilla and Ubuntu devs were working closely together, and you would think there wouldn't be a reason for this sort of nonsense as a result.

It's not going to keep me from using Firefox, which I've used religiously for about four years, but it is disappointing.

abrowser vs Iceweasel

[hackel]

What is the difference between this new unbranded "abrowser" package and Iceweasel, other than having a different name? I thought Iceweasel was meant to be exactly what abrowser claims...

Could Ubuntu rebrand Firefox?

[FlightlessParrot]

With something like, you know, a blue "e"?

Re:Could Ubuntu rebrand Firefox?

[hackel]

Did you bother reading the post? That's exactly what both abrowser and Iceweasel are.

As a desktop Windows user...

[msimm]

Am I the only one who finds it refreshing clicking an agreement that gives me more rights then it takes away? I think with the amount of proprietary creep-ware out there clicking on the occasional open source license and copyright notice is the least of my worries.

Re:As a desktop Windows user...

[JohnFluxx]

I know of no EULA that gives rights at all. Maybe you are getting confused with a distribution license (such as the GPL).

Re:As a desktop Windows user...

[msimm]

How longs it been since you installed a windows package of a GPL'ed project on sourceforge? Many of them do flash to GPL as their EULA, that's the license...for the end-user.

Re:As a desktop Windows user...

[JohnFluxx]

Yeah and that is a bug. It's because the author who packaged it didn't know any better. Please inform that the GPL is not a EULA.

Not a Windows user, are we?

[FlightlessParrot]

Nor am I, when I can help it, but maybe I should be a bit more prolific with my use of the Joke tag.

there wasn't much of a shitstorm when Debian did

[Trepidity]

There was a shitstorm over the whole controversy, but the specific issue of making "apt-get install firefox" install iceweasel instead hasn't really been much of an issue. Once Debian decided to pull firefox from their repository and replace it with iceweasel, turning the 'firefox' package into a transition package with no files that exists solely to depend on the 'iceweasel' package was the obvious thing to do.

One tab, that you can close when you want to.

[AndersAA]

http://stemp.wordpress.com/2008/09/14/intrepid-firefox-et-son-cluf/#comments If it's correct, that behavior is fine with me, nothing to accept = no need to call in the lawyers when using linux on enterprise.

You can vote

[hweimer]

They waited until an inconvenient time to improve the chances that Ubuntu would agree to their demands rather than changing the browser.

There are several Brainstorm ideas that propose a way of dealing with the EULA for the upcoming Intrepid Ibex release:

• Rebrand Firefox, ship it as Iceweasel. Iceweasel is the rebranded version of the Firefox browser, meaning it is 100% compatible with Firefox. The Debian people have been using it for years without problems.
• Ditch Firefox, ship Epiphany. Replace Firefox completely by shipping Epiphany, which is the web browser for the GNOME desktop environment.
• Do nothing. Users will be forced to accept the Mozilla EULA.

So far, the Iceweasel option seems to be the most popular by a large margin.

Stop modding this person up

[Anonymous Coward]

http://slashdot.org/~willyhill/journal/205317

Microsoft Firefox

[Keeper Of Keys]

Trademarks may lapse if they aren't legally defended. This is to prevent IE8 being renamed 'Microsoft Firefox'.

Re:Microsoft Firefox

[Requiem18th]

Again, if not agreeing with the EULA does not allow you to abuse the trademark anyway, agreeing with it achieves exactly nothing.

    Trademark dilution will happen when people call any random browser firefox, just like people say kleenex even when they don't really mean kleenex.

    Mozilla can't blame Ubuntu of trademark abuse until Ubuntu start talking about "open some firefox like epiphany or any other firefox".

    No, instead Mozilla Corp is threatening with copyright infringement unless Ubuntu complies with the license (which they did immediately) which consist on showing an EULA that accomplishes nothing except annoying users and making sure Ubuntu knows who's daddy. Again, say uncle.

No Need for a Fork of Firefox

[slydder]

There is no need to fork Firefox (is shit) as Iceweasel is already the standard solution. If they don't drop Firefox for iceweasel then it's time to fork Ubuntu to keep Ubuntu what it started out to be. Simple as that.

Re:I'm as big a fan of Mozilla and Firefox as anyo

[richlv]

see comment #12 at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=439604.
that's an attitude of "we're king of the hill, we want to do it this way, so FY everybody". i think this attitude is the worst part. oh, and you might consider voting on the bug ;)

Ubuntu complaining about Free Software

[tacocat]

This is funny. Ubuntu is starting to get all high and mighty about the idealism behind free software. I thought that was one of the main reasons for (initially) splitting out from Debian.

If you want free software use Debian, if you want to be p0wned use Ubuntu. Sorry, but I think Ubuntu did Debian a disservice by spitting out rather than combining efforts to make Debian more of whatever it is people like about Ubuntu (other than non-free).

IceWeasel works fine, a one time EULA works fine too. I think if Ubuntu is going to be a pop distro, meaning they have a high level of brand recognition, then they had better stick with what brands people know, Firefox, and not try to get purist. It will only hurt the benefits they have realized via name recognition.

Re:Ubuntu complaining about Free Software

[C_Kode]

Your entire post is asinine. Ubuntu isn't just about branding, it's about creating a polished desktop. While a Debian is a great distro, a polished desktop it is not.

To me; building software is about advancement, not about status quo. In your case, status quo is ensuring everything is absolutely free even at the cost of better.

GNU/Mozilla Firefox

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if this would be such an issue if it was called GNU/Mozilla firefox instead.

Mozilla wants sth. from Ubuntu, n.t.o.w.r.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fistly, clicking through an EULA does not do any good for Mozilla if the user sits in a non-US country.

Furthermore (as a question on principles) what prerogative does Mozilla have over other applications included in the distribution to annoy the user with silly popup licenses.

If every program included in a distribution suddenly wants to have its own click-through-EULA the user would need longer to click through them all then to install the distribution in the first place!

I say: No exceptions!

Discuss.

Sorry you're wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

If people want to eat McDonald's for dinner every day, let them. I'll eat a home cooked meal instead, but it's not my place to evangelize.

If 98% of the people ate nothing but McDonalds, you would find it very difficult to eat a home cooked meal, as grociery stores would be all but extinct.

Wrong; I have a garden and deer in my yard. It would be no more effort than it is already.

I wonder if we can stretch this analogy any further. Where's BadAnalogyGuy when you need him?

I want a [Whatever] button

[ancientt]

Reasonable point and one I didn't consider when replying. There are some other posts that point out that it does have usage clauses, but is intended to be a distribution control.

Screw it, I say. If make 'em click okay or do "Ctrl + Alt + F2". If you like we can put "[Whatever]" buttons on those places where agreement is not required since that is what most people say when they see them anyway.

Use a big blue capital E

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does it have to be what could be a fox self-fellating as the icon to mean "Web Browser"?

Use IceWeasel but change the icon and you're sorted.

An EULA is NOT NEEDED. Put it up when you ask for source code to be installed because you may then need to know that the source code is still copyrighted and you should read the agreement for its use in programming tasks.

Umm yes you will.

[LWATCDR]

"you will no longer receive proprietary and unreadable file formats from Windows users"
Yes you will or you will from commercial prodcuts that run under Linux and or the Mac. As long as Office is around you will. Not to mention all the docs that are already in Office format.
" you can design websites far more easily with greater features and usability, thanks to standards"
But unless IE drops to less than what %5 of the market odds are that you will have to still support it. I see no end to testing under Firefox, IE, and Safari any time soon.
Hopefully Chrome is close enough to Safari that you testing and fixing for one will cover both. And yes I know that Firefox and Safari tend to work closer to the standards than IE. But you still should at least test in each.
"hardware manufacturers will be forced to please the Linux crowd by throwing resources into the development and improvement of the Linux kernel"
Maybe but then again AMD, Intel, IBM, and now Via are already doing that. Oh and not to mention all the embedded companies. This one is already happened.
"current Windows developers will turn to developing Linux applications instead of Windows ones (even just small internal company software counts here)"
Maybe but without Visual Basic they are doomed. Frankly there is still a huge number that are already left out in the cold by Visual Basic .Net.
Maybe Mono will be their best hope.
"developers will need to cater for more idiots, which will most likely cause developers a lot of problems making a balance between power users and idiots with UI design - a better result should be obtained in the long run"
Only if they make money at it. This is the key issue here. Programmers want stuff just like everyone else. That takes a paycheck. Right now Red Hat, Suse, IBM, Cantonical, and a large number of others are all paying for this.
And please don't use the term idiots. People forget that most people use devices for work and they have NO clue how to maintain them. Most people that drive cars can not fix them, most pilots that fly planes are not A&Ps, and most people that use a stove can not fix those if they break. Making things easy to use is a good thing. A program that is powerful but hard to use isn't as good as a program that is powerful but easy to use.

Wholeheartedly concur..

[Junta]

I was trying to get some bits of the Gnome community to make 'constrain y' configurable at one point. You know, the annoying as all get out 'fetaure' that keeps you from alt-left-clicking the window and putting the title bar off screen. I could see the hypothetical argument that a novice could accidentally alt-left-click and drag, not understanding what they are doing. So I patched it with a gconf setting that would only be available by editing the raw setting. Their response was that if a Window could be resized, there never would be a reason to drag it off screen, and rejected the patch. It presented the same stupid default behavior, and hid the 'power-user' feature away 'safely' from the novice user's view.

Other platforms have gone down this path, and if pursued to the ultimate conclusion, Linux will be no better than the others. A large part of the value proposition is the power to do more things. All this focus on the lowest common denominator works to dilute it. Yes, I know I can switch desktop environments for ones that more closely align with my sensibilities, but a lot of good/useful features are implemented by developers with a focus on a 'complete' Gnome environment. Trying to get the best of all worlds leads to quite the unfortunate user experience.

Re:Wholeheartedly concur..

[Yfrwlf]

I completely agree with most of that at least, if you use intelligent programming and make things modular then any feature you want should be easily installable. Nautilus has plugins, but for many other things that modularity doesn't exist. Systems which are designed from the ground up to make it easy to plug in new features are much more usable and powerful systems. While I completely agree that a cleaner desktop is one that at least has the more advanced features tucked away a little perhaps, I definitely don't want those features to be completely inaccessible, that's just stupid. By inaccessible I mean that if they want to completely leave certain things out by leaving out certain plugins to reduce the size or whatnot that's fine, but allow users to easily be able to install and access those features if they want them. No reason not to, whatsoever, but perhaps Gnome just wasn't designed to be modular like that, which sucks.

But...

[Junta]

If the requirements of some of the commercial applications mandate that the user experience be no more flexible than Windows, what exactly was gained?

I've seen *nix applications at large go away from the administrator friendly simple ways (simple pipe interactions, rc files), to... something else... gconf imitates the Windows registry (a tad more sanely, given, but still...), applications are starting to require more API-like ways of extending/interacting with them that aren't as script friendly. In the course of 'progress', I see the platform erode some of its value, in increasingly hard to ignore places....

Re:But...

[fugue]

True, the Gnome people are especially good at forgetting that Linux ought to cater first to competent users. Even the "Beginner/Advanced" switch on options panels has been disappearing lately, let alone scriptable interfaces everywhere.

It's a compromise. I remember well the days when computer manufacturers had never heard of Linux, and being very excited when one asked me what I used and insisted I answer and had actually heard of it. Popularity has made Linux infinitely better (it runs on most hardware, and there is commercial software available) at some cost.

Many modern Linux developers are acting like Republican slime: they oppose the Middle Class. In much recent software, you begin as a complete novice (using their expurgated options dialogs), but then you stay there. There is no gradual progression of skills as you become more advanced, since the next skillset that lets you interact with the programs more powerfully is downloading the source, adding your own features, and recompiling. If you're lucky, registry hacks are an ugly middle ground. You are either proletariat or aristocracy.

Sue Ubuntu?

[logfish]

Is there a way I can sue Ubuntu for money on this? They state on their main page that one of their promises is to "encourage you to use free and open source software, improve it and pass it on.". If they violate this social contract, then I have put my free time into this community under false pretense. Is there a lawyer out there that can tell me if I can I get money for the amount of programming time I put into Ubuntu already?

Screw Firefox, use Iceweasel.

[NorQue]

If this discussion is turning into some kind of "vote" by participation I just wanted to voice my opinion to state that I'd rather use a unbranded Iceweasel than a EULA'd Firefox.

The Manager, Lawyer and PRolete type that has taken over the Mozilla Foundation can shove their EULA where the sun don't shine, for all I care.

vs icecat?

[Anonymous Coward]

iceweasel was renamed to icecat?

Is the idea with abrowser to have a themeable logo?

Re:I'm as big a fan of Mozilla and Firefox as anyo

[Philip Shaw]

But if Firefox becomes generic, then no-one else can trademark it either.

They have mixed up the EULA with the distribution licence, sicne only the distribution licence needs to have the terms relating to US export laws, not using the Firefox trademarks in derivative works. thus Sections 1, 2, 7, and 8 belong in the EULA file, 4 and 5 in WARRANTY, and 3 and 6 in the distribution licence. If these were linked to clearly in the initial page (which overrides the homepage the first time Firefox runs after an install or point upgrade), then that might be enough to count as a proper agreement (in the same way website Terms of Use are), but would not annoy users as much as a pop-up box does.

mod parent down, please

[NorQue]

1) What is it in the Coca Cola analogy that you didn't get? Coca Cola = Trademarked and they don't ask you to agree to an EULA.

2) If you have someone installing Ubuntu on a mission critical PC in a nuclear power plant you have some bigger problem than suing the people who made the browser.

3) Would you please stop insulting me?

Re:mod parent down, please

[FlyingGuy]

I really don't care if I get mod'd one way or the other. I just really sends me off the deep end when I hear people like you bitch and complain because you have to "agree" to some pretty damn innocuous statements and start saying things like "It ain't free man!!!".

A what point to you have to open up your wallet and pay? At what point did you have to agree that you owed the Mozilla foundation anything? At what point does it infringe on your ability to freely use the software? At what point does it tell you they reserve the right to snoop on you?

Yes Microsoft and their EULA's suck BIG time, this however does not. Instead of having a fucking knee jerk reaction to something completely and utterly meaningless to you stop and read what it actually states, then if you don't like it, go and use their code, renamed iceweasle ( and you wonder why the mainstream has a problem with using Linux ) or some other such shite brought to you by the tinfoil hat brigade.

Re:mod parent down, please

[NorQue]

They point is, this EULA is completely and utterly useless, period. There's no point at all in forcing Ubuntu to present it to its users.

Not to mention that in the country I'm from such a EULA is non-binding and agreeing with it doesn't mean squat.

Re:mod parent down, please

[NorQue]

I have to admit that the subject I chose is rather stupid, though. Sorry for that.

Debian will praise the day

[sweetandy]

If IceWeasel becomes the de facto standard on Ubuntu, then I think Debian would priase the day. However, users previously running Windows might be more familiar with, or at least might have heard about Firefox, and want to be able to use THAT, despite the complete lack of differences between IceWeasel and Firefox. A rose is a rose is a rose, only outside of corporate America.

Why a EULA?

[drew]

I understand Mozilla's position here, but why make it an agreement? There are a number of Open Source licenses that allow (or require) the software to make certain notices to the end user. There is nothing in Firefox's license "agreement" that really requires the user to agree to. It's kind of like some of the windows OSS projects that put the GPL text into the "EULA" box, even though it doesn't require any actual agreement (from an end user at least). If the Ubuntu installer just put an "OK" button on the license notice rather than making it an "agreement" and requiring the user to accept it before they can install (or use?) the software, there probably wouldn't be any controversy, and the Mozilla folks could still protect their trademark, notify people about the lack of warranty, and handle any other information that they felt the need to convey.

Disclaimers and warnings

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

http://www.rinkworks.com/said/warnings.shtml

XFree86, Round 2

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

This crap coming from Mozilla sounds a lot like the crap coming out of the XFree86 people not too long ago. That, combined with the horrible bloat of Firefox makes me wonder how long it will be until a new FOSS browser becomes the de-facto standard.

Re:first post

[krakelohm]

End User LICKING Agreement?

Firefox EULA

[Mista2]

Maybe they should use an approach similar to Open SUSE, during the installation, there is an option to Accept all of the EULAs for the non free software that was chosen for the installation. In corporate use, it is not up to our end users to accept or reject an EULA, it is up to us as the admin team to choose what software to deploy, license and accept for use.

If you dont like it dont use it.

[renegadesx]

If you dont like it, dont use it twitter! just use Konqueror

There's endless open browsers (icewesal, ephiphany, etc) out there to take your pick. You dont have to use firefox if you dont want to. You seem to miss one of the beauties of open source... more freedom of choice!

Reason for blacklash

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the blacklash I have seen is because there is an EULA at all.

Are EULAs evil in and of themselves? Is there something specific in the terms of this EULA to which people are objecting? Or is it just the fact that there is an EULA at all?

If you believe that any EULA at all, regardless of terms, is a bad thing, please explain why?

If you object to specific terms in this specific EULA, please explain why?