Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mozilla Demanding Firefox Display EULA In Ubuntu

Posted by kdawson on from the branding-vs.-freedom dept.

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.

3 of 785 comments (clear)

  1. GPL Compliance by hax0r_this · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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.

  2. I'm as big a fan of Mozilla and Firefox as anyone, by MMC+Monster · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
  3. Re:Fair enough by ubernostrum · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?