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

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

[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]

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

[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.

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.

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: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.

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:EULAs seem at odds with...

[temcat]

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

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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: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.

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: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?

[jibjibjib]

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

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.