Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
I write bullshit
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.
Proudly posting without RTFA.
Thing is, does the average user know how to compile their own software, and secondly, why should they have to?
Proudly posting without RTFA.
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...
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?
The average users doesn't use linux. The average user doesn't care if they click a EULA before running firefox.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
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.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
...and wrongly so, because GPL doesn't cover use, just distribution.
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..
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.
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
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.
"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.
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.
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.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
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.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
They waited until an inconvenient time to improve the chances that Ubuntu would agree to their demands rather than changing the browser.
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.
"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.
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
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.
> 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.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
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.
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.