Mozilla Demanding Firefox Display EULA In Ubuntu 785
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.
Fair enough (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
why does it matter? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Fair enough (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux is a trademark too. Does that mean I need to accept an EULA every time I install a new kernel? No.
Re:why does it matter? (Score:2, Insightful)
Mozilla can shit in their product as is their right. I don't have to eat it.
Re:Fair enough (Score:0, Insightful)
The problem is not the text on the popup. Click-through EULAs are void in many countries anyways. The problem is that they are grave usability bugs and should not be tolerated for any reason.
Re:Fair enough (Score:3, Insightful)
That's absurd. The Linux kernel can't have a EULA of the sort being discussed - it's impractical. The point is, so long as the terms are not onerous, and I doubt they would be, there's nothing wrong with Mozilla having a EULA stating their trademark rights and such things.
Re:So what? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Fair enough (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe it's reasonable, but lots of people will be angered by this, whether it's justified or not. Firefox already has a bad reputation right now, and by this I mean that a lot of people complain it, e.g. about the AwesomeBar, invalid SSL certs handling, and how it has gone downhill since 1.0. I don't agree with them, but nevertheless, the number of people who comment negatively about Firefox is *very* high. This became even more obvious since the release of Chrome. Many people are already predicting the death of the Firefox or ranting how about Firefox should ditch Gecko and switch to Webkit.
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.
I'm wondering why Mozilla thinks displaying an EULA in Ubuntu is absolutely necessary for protecting its trademark. Are there no alternatives? What are the legal reasons for this decision?
Re:EULAs seem at odds with... (Score:2, Insightful)
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...
They being so difficult (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fair enough (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't see why Ubuntu doesn't just swap a few icons, change positioning of some of the menu items and compile their own flavor of firefox without an EULA.
Re:Fair enough (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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:They being so difficult (Score:3, Insightful)
They hired lawyers. Lawyers don't fix problems, they create them. Here's a good example...
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fair enough (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think that Linux would be able to protect its own trademark in a court of law, since its used EVERYWHERE. Its become too common.
Firefox, however, takes steps to protect its trademark. This prevents companies like Dell from loading up Firefox full of adware bars and 'phone home' software on their computers, and just calling it Firefox, instead of Firefox + malware.
Free Software Needs no EULA. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Fair enough (Score:3, Insightful)
"jailbreaking"
So it isn't open by default and you have to *make* it open? I don't call that open at all. Besides, there's this issue with Apple actively trying to brick jailbroken iPhones via updates. Saying that the iPhone is open if you jailbreak it is like saying that Windows is free because you can pirate it. I don't doubt that an iPhone is more useful than a normal phone because jailbreaking is possible, but to me it can never be called "open" as long as it isn't open by default.
Making Ubuntu Accessible? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fair enough (Score:1, Insightful)
The reason I installed ubuntu when the hard drive I had debian installed on died on me was because I thought ubuntu leaned more towards the side of pragmatism and ease of use and less towards the side of free software absolutism.
With ubuntu I have to click ok when I play my first mp3, when I play my first dvd, when ubuntu first detects my nvidia card. It really doesn't annoy me all that much to have to click ok when I open up firefox for the first time as well.
The last thing I want is for ubuntu to start moving towards making it harder to install software that can't be called completely free.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Fair enough (Score:2, Insightful)
Ubuntu just needs to strip firefox out.
And make apt-get install firefox install Iceweasel instead.
And make the icon to launch it just say "Web Browser"
Re:Fair enough (Score:2, Insightful)
>I've seen plenty of people who criticize
>that open source software will never
>succeed on the desktop until it's more business-like.
I have too. They tend to have names like Gates, Ballmer, MonkeyBoy, Gartner,
PCWorld,BSA, etc.
Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible? (Score:2, Insightful)
Why would you want people to migrate? Let them use whatever they are happy with.
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 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.
Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible? (Score:5, Insightful)
I can not believe the complaints in this thread (Score:4, Insightful)
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:EULA is quite important (Score:3, Insightful)
"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.
Re:WTF is with you people?! (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Fair enough (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible? (Score:5, Insightful)
Making something easier to use doesn't mean dumbing it down.
Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Not in Linux distributions it isn't.
Re:not free? (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [slashdot.org]
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.
You MUST protect your trademark or you lose it. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible? (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Just because most GNU software doesn't have a EULA doesn't mean that projects which do should have their rights undermined for the sake of zealots. Of course the EULA isn't going to be displayed if it doesn't exist.
Requiring that the EULA be displayed 1 time the first time it's run is hardly unreasonable.
Re:Fair enough (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:not free? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm as big a fan of Mozilla and Firefox as anyo (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:not free? (Score:3, Insightful)
"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.
Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible? (Score:5, Insightful)
.
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Who needs a EULA to enforce a trademark? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:1, Insightful)
The only good argument for cramming linux down people's throats that I can think of is that it will foster adoption of standards. Even that doesn't satisfy me. I'm with arth1...I think linux needs more people who appreciate it for what it is, and can code. Not more MS refugees (there's enough Unix refugees as it is).
But, and this is a big but, we're talking about Ubuntu, which has the stated goal of bringing computing to as many people as possible. I think we need to evaluate this latest FF EULA stupidity in that light. Is including FF important for Ubuntu's mission? How about just temporarily?
Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible? (Score:1, Insightful)
Huh, and what do you do when the grocery store closes down because 99% of the population uses McDonald's instead of cooking their own food and you end up paying the McDonald's tax as health insurance prices skyrocket for everyone instead of just people who eat at McDonald's?
If nobody uses linux, it stops improving. With no competition, windows stops improving and starts abusing its monopoly again and you get to buy a windows 7 license with your next computer, which no long has driver support in linux for half its stuff because nobody uses linux anymore.
Now I'm not saying linux should be pushed on anyway, but I see absolutely no problem with making sure people are aware that there are viable alternative to windows for most people, and I see no problem with improving the ease-of-use of Ubuntu to make it more appealing to a wide audience. They're not going to take away your command line, you can still edit all the config files manually, and you can always use a custom version of linux instead of Ubuntu if they make it so you don't feel superior enough when using it. Ubuntu is not linux for geeks and it was never meant to be.
Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's entirely unreasonable to demand a special right that, if everyone got it [wikipedia.org], 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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:I can not believe the complaints in this thread (Score:2, Insightful)
Are you really that sad and angry that you'll complain about a NAME CHANGE of the default browser? Really now? This is a big deal / problem how exactly? Good lord, it's an application not the banning of all browsers from Ubuntu.
Everyone else here is debating the relative merits of going with Iceweasel or other forks/browsers. You're the only one complaining.
Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible? (Score:4, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Time for everyone to complain about Ubuntu (Score:3, Insightful)
> 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.
Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible? (Score:3, Insightful)
They improved Windows? They stopped abusing their monopoly?
When did that happen? All I heard about was Vista, hacking ISO and 228 patents. Why wasn't their change of heart on the front page??
Re:Fewer idiots using Linux (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible? (Score:5, Insightful)
Some reasons why you'd want the unwashed masses to migrate to Linux:
Sorry. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:1, Insightful)
Making it easier to develop for will make it so that more people develop for it.
Still waiting for a Visual Studio-killer on Linux...
Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible? (Score:3, Insightful)
And here you hit one of my pet peeves related to dumbing down for the masses.
Standard X mouse behaviour is now broken in most window managers, because it's been dumbed down, presumably to accommodate Windows users. Having the active window not be on top is incredibly useful. It allows you to work with partially overlapping windows, and actually work in them. But when any mouse click brings a window to the front, you defeat the purpose of X mouse behavior and focus-follows-mouse. On the other hand, since the title bar might be obscured, clicking the border of a window should bring the window to the front, and right-clicking it send it to the rear. Compiz/Emerald, the uber-newbie-friendly thang, breaks this traditional and useful behaviour completely. It's made for -- and, I suspect, by -- the new generation of Linux users which don't grasp concepts like working in overlapping windows or why X mouse behaviour was designed the way it was.
Another couple of changes to the mouse pointer behaviour also defies logic, and can only be explained by a desire to dumb things down for the masses:
- Double-clicking the top left traditionally closes a window. Even Windows gets this right. The reason why this is needed in addition to the widget for windows closing is closely linked to overlapping windows: The close widget might be obscured. Those who blow everything up full screen or use tiled windows won't need it, but those who are used to overlapping windows do.
- The mouse pointer traditionally flips when RMB is pressed. This is now disabled in almost all desktop environments. The traditional behavior serves a purpose: to not obscure the choice you're making. But it's confusing for newbies, so it's disabled.
I see dumbing down all over the place. Firefox, to stray back to the original topic, lacks many of the advanced configuration options that Netscape/Mozilla had, and Seamonkey still have most of. Because Firefox was dumbed down for the masses, presumably in an effort to avoid giving people enough rope to hang themselves with.
Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible? (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Making Ubuntu Accessible? (Score:3, Insightful)
Linux is also trademarked. Would you want a EULA for every new kernel as well?