Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla Nixes Firefox EULA Requirement
Less than a week ago, Mozilla asked (and Canonical relucantly agreed, in development versions of Intrepid Ibex) that users be required on first use to agree to a EULA before using Firefox. This drew lots of criticism, and Mozilla agreed that the requirement was flawed. Now, according to a story at Groklaw, the EULA requirement's been done away with. From the Groklaw article linked: "Bottom line: Now, you can install and use Firefox without having to agree to a EULA. The services have been separated out. If they were opt in instead of opt out, I'd be happier, but this is acceptable to me. There may be further tweaks, I understand, but I think it's time to acknowledge that Mozilla is behaving very well indeed now and demonstrating a desire to get this right."
by reading this post, you agree to mod me to +5, Informative.
If they had a desire to get this right, they would not have sprang a EULA requirement on Canonical this late into the release process (next Ubuntu release is in a couple of weeks). This is a reaction to the negative press they've been getting. Thanks, Slashdot!
The EULA has been present since the first 1.0 release of Firefox, and people complained just as bitterly then. Why is it that it took a major player like Canonical to get Mozilla to finally respond to their community?
*crickets*
Does this mean Ubuntu which switch tack and include Firefox in Intrepid Ibex?
While this was certainly an issue to be concerned about, it was disappointing to see the invective and bile poured out by some on the Launchpad bug page.
I thought the informative first-run tab was a good way to go about things and I'm glad things finally got settled by sitting down and offering feedback. The best thing about the Free Software and Open Source communities is that they're communities. Coming together to work on solutions is what makes us so much stronger than proprietary software whose owners ignore their own users.
When will companies (organizations) realize that convenience, more than any other factor including price, is a primary differentiator? If you make it difficult, people will just move on to the next solution that is easy. This works for EULAs, DRM, product activation, installation, acquiring media, playing music... "Simple" wins every time.
Does this mean Debian can go back to using Mozilla/Firefox too?
Or would it still make more sense to implement an easily customized "installer" for Mozilla/Firefox that could be adapted to any distribution and let the distribution install the installer rather than the actual product?
I agree with you completely.
ps. you could always try "old location bar" which is experimental but at least it removes that idiotic search.
Why is it that it took a major player like Canonical to get Mozilla to finally respond to their community?
Users can complain, but distros can do something about it by ganging up and shipping it rebranded only? Of course in the short term that's a minor issue for Mozilla but if it was established that Firefox on Linux == Iceweasel (or whatever, lousy name) and Linux becomes more popular through UMPCs and the like, Mozilla could stand to lose a lot of brand power and have no power to do anything about it. It'd be just like CentOS except the original isn't available, how long would it take for the new name to settle? Not long at all, I wager. After all, it'd still be the exact same browser down to the last bit, not like switching people to another browser. Mozilla is caving here because they got little to gain and everything to lose.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Everyone I know agrees that the awesome bar is exactly that, awesome.
If you didn't want the new features, why did you upgrade?
How we know is more important than what we know.
While I am pleased they have resolved the EULA issue, that is small stuff compared to the ongoing Ubuntu issue of flash and pulseaudio that causes Firefox to crash. There are a thousand and one "fixes" to be found and only a few work, and it only takes an update to undo the fix. I have resorted to using Seamonkey for stability. So, Canonical please just make it work - EULA or not.
IIRC, the EULA didn't pop up on first run, except on Windows, where it's expected.
No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
I have obtained a legal copy of the software. It is no longer Mozilla's business what I do with it. Copyright prevents me from distributing it, but I what I do with it is solely up to me. They own the copyright, but the specific copy in my possession is now my property and I have the moral right to use it. Requiring that I assent to a EULA for software that I already have the legal right to use is bullshit.
If Mozilla doesn't like it, they can offer me the agreement before/b> I acquire the software! It's bad enough that proprietary companies try to foist this crap on us, but I expect better from Open Source companies.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
If the GPL does not restrict what I use the software for, then how can it restrict me from using GPL software to implement a EULA agree-er?
So long as the package includes the GPL and the source is available, and the EULA does not change that, blah blah, why should the GPL be concerned with what my app does?
I've heard discussions about having intermittant popups that would gently annoy people into upgrading.
Firefox has become what Phoenix originally was meant to stop. What will it take before Epiphany is just as good/lightweight as Firefox _used_ to be, but without all the ``let's grow this brand'' hype?
Firefox is making excellent headway and has a lot of funding coming in, but it's Open Source, and a lot of its research/code can leak over to other projects as well, maybe ones that aren't trying to win over IE users that don't know any better.
This is for sure the biggest issue currently facing the adoption of Linux.
I have personally convinced 30 or so people (smart, but not especially technical) to try Ubuntu. Without fail they loved it. Even getting to grips with command line stuff (most of them have had to do similar things on windows boxes, and felt that Linux was much more elegant and sensible in this regard).
How embarrassing then, to have to shrug my shoulders and admit defeat, because of the ubiquitous crashing of Flash.
Only a couple of that initial 30 have stuck with it, the rest split pretty much evenly between OSX and Vista. They tell me they like these alternatives less, for cost, usability and even idealogical reasons, but YouTube works every time. Sad.
"Be light, stinging, insolent and melancholy"
Umm. There's a popup that says "a new version is available, do you want to upgrade?" And your options are: Yes, No right now, Never. Select never if you don't want it.
I've heard discussions about having intermittant popups that would gently annoy people into upgrading.
One should not listen to scuttlebutt. If you haven't experienced it yourself, you shouldn't have an opinion.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Glad to hear how it turned out.
It matters more to them than they know, as people who care about such things can be -very- influencial of many, many others.
Many of my friends ask me about "computer stuff", and I am not shy in warning about unfair eula's or potential traps etc...
Whether some unneeded restriction etc. is present or not in software often makes me just turn away from it to the next alternative. Just like that.
I really -REALLY- apreciate that they have removed the eula.
I hope Sun will take a hint from this, and stop trying to impose the LGPL as a click-through EULA in the Windows versions of OpenOffice. I teach a physics lab course where I'm trying to encourage students to use OpenOffice instead of Office. (One really practical reason is that they'll make a graph using Excel at school, email it to themselves, then try to open it at home using Excel and find out they can't, because they have an older version of Excel at home.) The really annoying thing is that when you install OOo, it forces each user to click through the EULA the first time on that machine. This is lame, because:
Find free books.
Force Ubuntu to invoke the copy right on *every* launch: from the GPL 2.0
c) 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.)
It too bad though. What would happen if Mozilla decided not to cave? Ubuntu would have either had to decide to suck it up or not distribute Firefox. Ubuntu users would have installed Firefox anyway.
This is bullshit whining from a small, but vocal, group. Mozilla should have told Ubuntu to pack sand.
openSUSE has a dracionian EULA too (http://en.opensuse.org/OpenSUSE_EULA) but it seems noone has noticed yet. It is a shame to expose foss to nasty and incompatible it's-my-IP/licensee/export-controls shit. here are some bits:
Novell reserves all rights not expressly granted to You. You may not: (1)
reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the Software except and only to
the extent it is expressly permitted by applicable law or the license terms
accompanying a component of the Software; or (2) transfer the Software or
Your license rights under this Agreement, in whole or in part. (..) Novell and/or its licensors owns and retains all title and ownership of all intellectual property rights in the Software, including any adaptations or copies. You acquire only a license to use the Software.
abuse abuse and more abuse, contradiction with SL and terms that are invalid on a lot of countries
From the groklaw link: "Instead of a EULA, the new page you get on install is a notices page with no "I agree" requirement, along with a link to an optional services agreement, and instructions there on how to avoid having to accept the services, if you don't want them."
Let me get this straight. There's a popup window with legalese that includes an agreement that you have to figure out how to opt out of? So it's like a EULA, but they just assume you agree, and the "I Agree" button has been renamed "Next"?
I don't see how this is significantly different.
There's more than one new feature. Most of the new features were clear improvements. The awesomebar wasn't, it was a backward slide into Microsoft-style "usability enhancements" with no ability to disable. Heck, even Microsoft allows you to disable "smart menus".
3.0 isn't better in every way than 2.0; but it is better in most ways. It's worth upgrading to, despite the awesomebar. I just hope that in some future version they add in some sensible config options to revert the location bar back to a straight and simple alphanumeric match to previously typed URLs. Some people like it, and that's great; but why remove the prior functionality?
umm, because they think it is better and a lot of people agree. I really do think that you awesome bar detractors are the odd one's out. But there's good news, it's open source, you can add or remove any features you want. And before you start going on about how you're not a programmer so you don't have the option, surely there's someone out there who *is* a programmer and who dislikes the awesome bar - get them to do it - and if there isn't, then maybe you're just nit picking eh?
Really, if you want software to be exactly the way you like it then you have no option but to learn how to customize it to your own personal liking.. and often that means programming. The good news is that you didn't need to code up the awesome bar (or the original bar) to decide which one you preferred..
How we know is more important than what we know.
Oh, there are add-ons that get rid of most of the awesomebar. There are programmers that hate it just as much as I do! Several versions popped up pretty quickly. I use "oldbar". I'm one of those guys that puts Firefox on friend's and family's machines... now, oldbar is part of the standard install for me, just like adblock and flashblock.
Strangely, it was a real struggle downloading it from the firefox site; It's listed, but didn't allow downloads. I had to go to a 3rd party site, which I've never had to do for an add-on before.
I'd rather have the option built in, than use an add-on, though. It's a little cleaner, more efficient. As I said, the code was all there; it was stripped out. Why?
Users can complain, but distros can do something about it by ganging up and shipping it rebranded only?
Perhaps we can get Canonical to complain about Awesomebar. If it weren't for hideunvisited and oldbar extensions I'd have ditched FF or stayed with 2.0 but the devs just don't care no matter how many users complain.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
As I said, the code was all there; it was stripped out. Why?
As I answered, because the Awesome bar is better.
If the old bar had been left in then people would have complained that FF is bloated.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't it seems.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Installing libflashsupport doesn't address the issues for you?
DNA just wants to be free...
It did here.I'm running Slackware current.
Obviously, we disagree that it was better; I understand that designers have to draw a line somewhere, they can't make every user happy, etc., etc.
But there were a lot of complaints about the awesomebar all through development, through the beta releases, and so forth. It's ongoing, and I'm sure it's by far the feature of firefox 3.0 that has drawn the most criticism. Why not throw a bone to a sizable chunk of their users and allow a choice? I'm sure the code for the old locationbar is a fraction of the size devoted to the awesomebar.
I see that my original post is now "1, troll", although it can't be interpreted as a troll by any honest moderator. I say that most new features of Firefox are clear improvements, then make a specific criticism. It was not rude or argumentative. Are suggesting ways to improve an already great browser verboten here now, because it implies that it isn't already perfect?
You still haven't said why you think the awesome bar is anything other than awesome.
I really don't know what your problem is with it. But, ultimately, Mozilla decides what Firefox is.. if you don't like it, roll your own or use a competitor.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Is it an issue with particular versions of Ubuntu, that does not affect other versions or other distros? Is it a particular Flash version and browser combination? The GP says it occurs with FF but not with Seamonkey.
The other thing i cannot understand is why so many people you know were affected. Too many for it to be coincidence. Is there some common factor?
The Awesomebar detractors have been very vocal (for instance, it's been months, and here we are talking about it). That doesn't mean there's a lot of them, or that they represent the majority. The downmod is unfair, but it's probably because of the combination of (a) people are sick of hearing this and (b) there's been a solution from the beginning. I doubt your browser is loading noticeably slower because of oldbar. Imagine if people were still complaining about the 'Live Bookmarks' addition.
Perhaps over time, cruft will become an issue, but seeing FF3's reduced memory usage has caused me to stop worrying about that.
Just avoid Mozilla's binaries. Get GNU Icecat and have truly free GPL software.
Installing libflashsupport is only valid for flash 9, with flash ten it is redundant. I do not know why it affects some and not others, but a quick Google search and you will see it is a widespread problem. It is specifically pulseaudio, Adobe Flash 9/10 and Firefox. It may come down to chipsets and audio card combinations. My Intel G33 and MAudio Revolution51 crashes a lot, my daughters Nvidia board and AMD cpu with Sound Blaster Live also crashes. Both Ubuntu Hardy. I also have two with Debian lenny and do not have an issue (no pulseaudio either).
And I clicked "Never" and got asked again.
Yes, it IT annoying.
(And yes, I'm still using Firefox 2.0.x.x and I'm happy)
Not as annoying as your fail to use the preview button though eh? :)
How we know is more important than what we know.
That's because plenty of users like it. I love the thing, personally. Users who don't like it (usually a small but vocal minority of changephobes) complain, but eventually get used to it. That's how every major change in every software I've seen works. People react because it's not what they're used to, with very few concrete reasons for their opposition. The reasons they do come up with are usually either unwillingness to consider the reasons behind the change, or pointless and/or insignificant nitpicking. After a while, they get used to it, adjust, and move on. Then when things change again, it's back to complaining about how the old design (the same thing that was new and terrible last time) is way better, and the new one is crap.
;)
*For a Windows OS, anyway. I'm writing this on Linux because using Windows for any extended period of time just annoys me anymore, so I'm not making any claims of absolute decency, just relative to the rest of the Windows line. (Yeah, yeah, Win2k excepted)
It's happened before. Look at Pidgin's name and interface change, Facebook a few times, and, yes, Firefox. Heck, look at XP. "Everyone" decried it as bubbly and stupid, but it's turned out to be a decent system.* And Office 2k7 - everyone (yes, me included) decried the ribbon, it was terrible, the worst idea anyone ever had. But most people who actually took the time to use it (again, myself included) found that it was a far more productive interface. But it took some relearning and some (gasp!) change. For another random example, Blender is often cited for its unintuitive user interface (it does have a very steep learning curve), but it's designed in such a way that once you learn it, it's much more productive and easier to work with.
Changephobia in software is largely detrimental, and rarely results in any good.
The devs don't listen to your whining about the Awesomebar because they've seen this cycle time and time again, and know that you'll get used to it and learn to love it. They had a lot of reason behind creating the Awesomebar, and for the vast majority of users, it's a boon for usability and a great idea. In the case that you're part of the vast minority that will cling to their extensions and old versions, you're just that - a vast minority who is willing to sacrifice effort (downloading an extension) for keeping things like they were. It's not worth the dev's effort to try to satisfy a minority that can easily be satisfied through other means.
Also, random aside: your sig doesn't make sense. The idea is true enough, but you can't mod someone with a combination of Troll and Flamebait. Look up the definition of boolean logic.
Besides, we all know that "-1:StronglyDisagreeAndWishToCensor" is what "Overrated" is for
You all have Oo.o and Firefox, so get World Wind.
I would venture to suggest that the difference is that there was little to no support from the userbase for adding in the EULA. A lot of people (but admittedly not all) quite like the Awesomebar. Heck, I think it's the best thing about FF3.
Am I the only one that doesn't see why this is such a big deal? No, I'm not trolling. I honestly don't get why it's so bad to have to click I Agree on a program we all know is safe, or to skip a EULA. There's no backlash against having the EULA on Windows or Mac, is there? Can someone explain why this is newsworthy? I honestly don't understand.
I have *never* had the 'never' option ungreyed-out. Every Firefox install I have ever done seems to silently default to 'download new updates and force user to either install now or on next application start'.
Try FreeBSD (or PC-BSD if you want something more user-friendly). The kernel has supported sound mixing for ages (since around 2001, as I recall, although it became trivial to use with 5.x). Userspace programs just open /dev/dsp and write sound there. They don't have to deal with all agreeing to use the same userspace mixer, they just pretend that they are the only process on the machine and let the operating system handle multiplexing of the hardware (just like it does for RAM, CPU time, disk and network access, and everything else).
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Dear Firefox:
I hear you've gotten your head out of your ass about the EULA, though there's still some "services" that are opt-out. I hope and pray that this policy will extend to some of the features of 3.0 which I would dearly love to be able to opt out of, but can't (or can't without annoying workarounds). The UglinessBar comes instantly to mind. A close second is the obnoxious "you're too stupid to make your own decisions, so here's a gratuitous hoop to jump through" way you now have of dealing with noncommercial certificates - and make no mistake about it, you're not half so much protecting anyone from hypothetical MitM attacks as you are herding the sheep to the sites that will most effectively shear them of their money.
Frankly, 3.0 has left me longing for a viable replacement, even after installing a passle of extensions to bandaid over the worst problems. Whatever happened to the great browser that used to go by your name?
In Firefox 1.0? Or Firefox 3.0?
No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
Why not throw a bone to a sizable chunk of their users and allow a choice? I'm sure the code for the old locationbar is a fraction of the size devoted to the awesomebar.
It is easier than that. Restricting a search to a smaller subset would be a piece of cake. You have a 4-bit word, 0010, and it might represent: search title; search page; search URL; search meta tags. Alter this word in 'about:config' from the default 1111. It is trivial, so fucking easy. It was hardcoded and kept off about:config because they WANT TO CONTROL HOW THE SOFTWARE IS USED. I know you likely agree, but this is the counter message. Mozilla is jumping the proverbial shark.
The amoount of annoyance is calculated. Enough to cause a fork to be maintained? Not likely, so they figure "what the fuck!".
I would venture to suggest that the difference is that there was little to no support from the userbase for adding in the EULA. A lot of people (but admittedly not all) quite like the Awesomebar. Heck, I think it's the best thing about FF3.
You like the idea of every site you've visited being seen by any user looking over your shoulder. You like big pretty print. That's fine with me. I'd just like the ability to turn it off because I like neither of these things. Why I have to download an extension to do it, and still not have standard behaviour shared by every other web browser in existence when this had been how it was done for years is beyond me. Sure plenty of users like it. Leave it as an option. Even the default. But let me turn it off at least with the config editor.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Verbally bashing people (labelling them changephobes) who don't like a change to software that you happen to like is immature, destructive and just plain asinine. I dont mind change at all. If I did I wouldn't be using a web browser to begin with let alone updating my browser. Don't let that get in the way of your long troll.
You like the idea of every site you've visited being seen by any user looking over your shoulder. You like big pretty print. That's fine with me. I'd just like the ability to turn it off because I like neither of these things. Why I have to download an extension to do it, and still not have standard behaviour shared by every other web browser in existence when this had been how it was done for years is beyond me. Sure plenty of users like it. Leave it as an option. Even the default. But let me turn it off at least with the config editor.
Furthermore change for the sake of change is a waste of time, particularly when it's disruptive. A forced change is going to have to be very clearly a good one before I agree with it. Yet I can make a VERY strong case for why Awesomebar is about as awesome as week old garbage.
The irony is you tell me that you don't use Windows because it annoys you. How would you like it if that choice were taken away from you?
By the way your pedantic rant about my signature just proves you're an immature troll. Nothing more. You say you understand what I'm trying to say then dismiss it because it won't pass a compiler test. If I changed the && to || you'd have some other meaningless complaint. It's meant to compact and to be read by people, not a compiler.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Maybe because most people find installing an extension a lot less intimidating than monkeying with about:config?
still not have standard behaviour shared by every other web browser in existence when this had been how it was done for years is beyond me
Sounds like changephobic language to me - especially the "how it was done for years" part.
Personally, I love the "awesome bar" (though its name is a tad silly). I visit tons of websites, I can't always remember part of the url, and don't want my bookmarks all cluttered up. The "awesome bar" solves the problem. Regarding your "VERY strong case for why Awesomebar is about as awesome as week old garbage", make it if you can. Most of us don't really give a rats ass if people are seeing what websites we've visited when we're at the coffee shop. Honestly, I doubt all the people coming and going with their $4 cups of coffee really care to look. If I was visiting shady sites, I'd just use Distrust (but God forbid I have to install an extension)
Maybe because most people find installing an extension a lot less intimidating than monkeying with about:config?
You're kidding right? Installing 2 extensions you have to find, vs "monkeying" around with about:config. Lets see. One requires you're online and hunt down the extension, and requires the extension to be compatible with the particular version of firefox you use, and the other requires you know it exists and have a rough idea what the setting to modify is. You have to be trolling. No one could seriously be stupid enough to suggest that installing an extension is easier than "monkeying" with about:config. Some of us aren't monkeys. Some of us aren't trolls. What's worse there use to be a config option in the betas but they removed it for final release.
Sounds like changephobic language to me - especially the "how it was done for years" part.
"Changephobic"? You're either a stupid self righteous teenager or doing your best impression of one. I've explained my position. You can continue to throw around stupid words (if you can call "changephobic" a word) until you go blue, but it doesn't make what you say any more true. If you're going to try to abuse me, you might want to look up a real word like Luddite so you don't sound so damn stupid.
Personally, I love the "awesome bar" (though its name is a tad silly). I visit tons of websites, I can't always remember part of the url, and don't want my bookmarks all cluttered up. The "awesome bar" solves the problem.
As I said, you're welcome to awesome bar. I don't have a problem with you using it. I don't even have a problem with it being the default (though that is silly). What I have a problem with is the forced change and no way to turn it off. You want all these things because it's your own preference but don't seem to want to accomodate someone else's preferences. Much easier to abuse them than to acknowledged that they have different needs. I visit tons of websites too and I don't have a problem remembering URLs. I do have a problem with advertising every site I've visited to any passer by.
Regarding your "VERY strong case for why Awesomebar is about as awesome as week old garbage", make it if you can. Most of us don't really give a rats ass if people are seeing what websites we've visited when we're at the coffee shop.
I see. Make your case. I'll ignore or ridicule it because I have my own agenda. Plenty of incentive for me to make my case there. You're a childish idiot.
Honestly, I doubt all the people coming and going with their $4 cups of coffee really care to look. If I was visiting shady sites, I'd just use Distrust (but God forbid I have to install an extension)
So the only use case you can think of for a browser is some troll sitting at a coffee shop drinking overpriced coffee? Moron.
Grow the fuck up.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer