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

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: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:Fair enough

[X0563511]

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

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

[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: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.

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.

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: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: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