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.
What's the big deal? (Score:5, Funny)
Blindly clicking through meaningless and offensive EULAs is standard practice in the Windows world.
Making Ubuntu Accessible? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible? (Score:5, Informative)
The problem is that the official icon is more usable than the community edition icon, which still has limitations. Ubuntu didn't always ship the branded icon, but it's clear that nobody realizes at first that the firefox quicklaunch icon is a web browser. It's like a joke that requires you to call it a "world wide web broswer", or remember what WWW is supposed to stand for. But hell if I know what to do about it. A page in the NYtimes with iceweasel icons promoting open source web browsers?
It's really incredibly sad what they're doing; phoenix was an unofficial project and they had to rename the project twice in order to make this branding thing possible again.
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: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, Interesting)
'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
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)
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:Making Ubuntu Accessible? (Score:4, Interesting)
Branding is a big thing for a lot of people. Especially people who aren't the technically proficient types. You know, the ones who call any digital audio player an iPod. Or who think Microsoft invented the internet or the GUI. A lot of those people can't name a reason a particular program is good off the top of their head, except saying something about the established (deserved or not) brand of the product and the company that makes it. The functionality for a lot of those people is very possibly a secondary concern. Considering how Ubuntu wants to be one of the major desktop OS contenders (and is closer to that goal than any OS not produced by Apple or Microsoft), having some appeal to those people is definitely in the best interest of everyone involved.
Now, if some other group wants to shove their EULA in everyones face on a default Ubuntu install, should Mark cave? Probably not, unless not doing so would severely hamper their goals. Is that fair? Hell no. Is it against the spirit of the OSS community? Maybe, but a lot of distributions make compromises in the sake of usability and appeal. If they didn't, all of us who use Linux and BSD would end up using distributions such as blag and gNewSense. Now I can't speak for anyone else, but I like having my wireless card automatically detected and set up when I install my operating system, and I know that it's drivers are not free as in freedom.
Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible? (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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.
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: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)
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? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
However, I do have a very real drive to put the Microsoft monoculture out of action, since that would make for a much more interoperable world. I am actively troubled by people trying to send me MS Office files and people writing IE-only web pages. And getting people to use Linux is probably the best way to achieve the goal of avo
Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: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: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
Fewer idiots using Linux (Score:5, Funny)
You mean back to the good old days when the kernel could barely self-host and you had to bit edit to get things to boot off a IDE hard drive?
Ah, those were the days.
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:Making Ubuntu Accessible? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible? (Score:4, Interesting)
Where Mozilla seems to be coming from is that Firefox and its artwork are a registered trademark and that they are keen to protect how its name is used, how the browser is packaged, what its default settings are. The source is open (and GPL'd) but the name isn't. The same could be said of most commercial open source - the owners are protective of their branding - which would be why gNewSense is called gNewSense and not Ubuntu Free Speech or similar.
Anyway yes you could use iceweasel if you so object to Mozilla protecting their brand. But then you are reliant on the iceweasel group to track Firefox and release timely bugfixes and security updates on their own. For the sake of an EULA I think I would prefer the official packages.
Re:Making Ubuntu Accessible? (Score:5, Insightful)
Some reasons why you'd want the unwashed masses to migrate to Linux:
GPL Compliance (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [gnu.org]
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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:What's the big deal? (Score:5, Funny)
..and +1 Funny and +1 Interesting and -1 Redundant and...
Sorry, couldn't stop clicking.
/recovering Windows user
//+1 slashie
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.
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: (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:Fair enough (Score:5, Funny)
You have just launched /bin/bash
EULA - blah blah blah.... ...
Agree Y/N: Y
user@host: ~/ $ ls /bin/ls
You have just ran
EULA - blah blah blah.... ... ..
Agree Y/N: Y
.
Desktop
Pictures
Downloads
user@host: ~ $ cd Pictures /bin/cd
You have just ran
EULA - blah blah blah.... ...
Agree Y/N: Y
user@host: ~/Pictures $
Wow I can't wait!!!
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Once upon a time, the same was true of Debian, and their official contact from Mozilla granted them an exception. Then, over a year later, out of the blue and in the middle of a release, a new Mozilla contact appeared, said "oh, we've decided that agreement is retroactively not valid, change what you're doing or fac
Re:Fair enough (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Fair enough (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually... yes, that is the way it happened [debian.org]. 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: (Score:3, Informative)
That's not the way it happened. It wasn't the Mozilla contact, it was debian's own people, pointing out that their deal with mozilla was against debian principles - debian does not allow itself to accept licenses which are specific to debian, believing this could lead to it distributing non-free stuff. (After all, that agreement meant that a user couldn't take debian, call it something else, and distribute it as a new distro, because they wouldn't have that agreement for the mozilla trademarks).
While Debian indeed does not accept software which provides freedom only to Debian and not to others (point 8 of the Debian Free Software Guidelines, "License Must Not Be Specific to Debian", reflected in point 8 of the Open Source Definition), this does not in any way relate to why Debian could not distribute Firefox under the name "Firefox".
Debian has no problem with licenses that grant additional freedoms to Debian or its users, as long as everyone has all the necessary freedoms of Free Software. Debian
Re:Fair enough (Score:5, Interesting)
>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.
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Mozilla violating GPL? (Score:4, Interesting)
The source code that is compiled into browsers such as Firefox and Iceweasel is triple-licensed under the MPL, GPL, and LGPL. You have the option of choosing any or all of those when you distribute it. When Mozilla distributes it as Firefox, they choose to use only the MPL, which does allow them to add this EULA.
So, no, nobody is violating any licenses here.
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: (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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not really convinced. There must be *something* that they can do. For example, take the iPhone. Someone's iPhone melted the owner's pocket and burned his skin. Some magazines showed that the iPhone would occasionally drop the connection during a phone conversation. The iPhone platform is not open and is strictly regulated by Apple. Despite all this, the iPhone hype still exist and everybody still wants one. This shows that it is possible to market a product so that people still want it despite all the p
Re: (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.
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:Fair enough (Score:5, Informative)
"The answer of course is B."
Is that so? I've seen plenty of people who criticize that open source software will never succeed on the desktop until it's more business-like.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Is that so? I've seen plenty of people who criticize that open source software will never succeed on the desktop until it's more business-like.
Ok, what are the most popular (commercial) Linux vendors? There is Red Hat which via Fedora is very in touch with the community, There is Canonical which makes Ubuntu which is very in touch with the community (overlooking the current Mozilla EULA problem), and Novell which had huge criticisms about patent issues that it was forced to become more in touch with the community. Then on the business side for the distros which seem very out of touch with the community we have: Xandros which very few people use
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"The answer of course is B."
Is that so? 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 think those people mean "business-like in their approach to development" and not "business-like in their efforts to spread FUD and screw-over their customers".
Re:Fair enough (Score:5, Interesting)
Then we should all start filing it as a bug until it gets fixed or they put iceweasel in.
Re:Fair enough (Score:5, Informative)
Go vote on the bug report then:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=439604 [mozilla.org]
why does it matter? (Score:4, Insightful)
Too corporate (Score:5, Interesting)
It is inconcievable that Mozilla would face any legal problems due to a lack of EULA.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
.
The Moz Foundation has been corporate from Day 1, beginning with an infusion of cash from AOL in 2003. In 2006 about 85% of its revenues came from its contract with Google - a hefty $57 million. Mozilla Foundation [wikipedia.org]
Well, at least the options are there! (Score:3, Interesting)
In any negotiation, it's important to think about one's alternatives. At least in the open source case, there's a good alternative -- recompiling without the restrictive / undesirable parts. Sure, branding power will suffer, but this community in particular will understand.
Ever heard of BATNA [wikipedia.org]?
--
Hey code monkey, learn electronics! Powerful microcontroller kits for the digital generation. [nerdkits.com]
EULA is quite important (Score:5, Informative)
Re:EULA is quite important (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (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 t
They being so difficult (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They hired lawyers. Lawyers don't fix problems, they create them. Here's a good example...
EULA Contents: (Score:5, Informative)
EULA: http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/legal/eula/firefox-en.html [mozilla.com]
Summary:
Preamble - notice that the source is available and this license does not apply to the source.
1. License Grant - This license gives you the right to use the executable provided by Mozilla Corp.
2. Termination - if you breach this license, S1 is voided.
3. Proprietary Rights - again, the source code is not proprietary. The branding logos are, you don't have the right to modify them.
4. Disclaimer of Warranty
5. Limitation of Liability
6. Export Controls - you must comply with teh law.
7. US Govt End Users - 2 sentences of legal references related to employees of the US Govt using Firefox.
8. Misc, nothing interesting at all. This agreement constitutes the agreement...
Sounds like Mozilla Corp doing the bare minimum to cover their asses, in a responsible fashion, without actually affecting end users at all.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
You're begging the question. Permission from the vendor is required to "legally acquire" the software. If that permission is conditional, based on what they have decided to sell, then you're right back here.
*ALL* contracts cover things which are not present or required by statutory law. By definition, that is why they exist.
This is not a right the vendor is legally able to extend under the copyright act.
Citation needed. You won't find one.
The Copyright Act specifies what both customers and owners can't do. If it's not prohibited by the Act or independently barred by some other law,
Next step for Mozilla Corp.. (Score:5, Funny)
...is to provide a "genuine firefox advantage" feature, that will check if your Firefox (tm) installation is genuine, and show a nasty transparent box in the corner of the screen...
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Time for everyone to complain about Ubuntu (Score:4, Interesting)
When Mozilla asked Debian to stop redistributing Firefox, many people complained about Debian being too idealistic. [slashdot.org] (I.e. they really didn't look into the issue at all.) Let's hear the same chorus now about Ubuntu! (Hint: It's not Debian or Ubuntu that is the problem here folks!)
Re: (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
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:I can not believe the complaints in this thread (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [tuxfamily.org], which IMO has nicer branding than the non-official builds of Firefox and Thunderbird.
I'm as big a fan of Mozilla and Firefox as anyone, (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.
EULA summary (Score:5, Informative)
1. We're letting you use the software. Have fun.
2. If you don't want to use the software, don't.
3. We need to protect our trademarks, so if you change something and redistribute it, don't call it Mozilla or Firefox.
4. No warranty, get over it.
5. We're not responsible for anything that goes wrong. This actually is just a paraphrase of section 4, and like section 4, we've stated it in ALL CAPS, so you'll be sure to pay attention to it.
6. There might be laws about sending this software out of the country. Try to obey them.
7. If you're using this in a US government environment, there are certainly many laws that will regulate its use. Please pay attention to them.
8. We're doing it the California way, the UN will not be involved (thank goodness), this agreement is written in English, you can give this (unmodified) license and product to someone else, and we won't mind.
There. The important parts.
-Restil
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.
First time clicks... (Score:3, Informative)
Another poster points out how benign the actual agreement is; so the upshot of this is a first-time clickthrough.
Why haven't people revolted against the "you're submitting a secure form" for the first time or "you're navigating to an insecure site" for the first time warnings and crap that Mozilla and others have had for ages. They're *far* more annoying than an Eula, IMHO, as there seems to be a few of them...
Such a non-issue, I doubt it'll hurt them seriously. And for those seriously freaked out, Iceweasel is an easy workaround, that makes everyone happy.
Once isn't enough - I want it every 5 minutes (Score:5, Funny)
Only showing an EULA once is ridiculous.
1) As many have pointed out, most people will 'click-through' the 1st time they see a license, not reading it at all. Showing the license multiple times, maybe each startup, or maybe every 5 minutes, helps to ensure that users know their obligations as users, and don't infringe on Mozilla's God-given trademark.
2) What happens on internet Kiosks, libraries, schools, etc? You can't only show the EULA once, as the sys admin will be the only one to know of their obligations, and none of the real users will know.
3) With so much pop-up advertising in web CONTENT, is it really too much to ask for our web browser to start demanding some recognition as well?
I KNOW SOME PEOPLE ARE ALSO PISSED OFF AT MOZILLA'S USE OF ALL-CAPS IN THEIR LICENSE, BUT HONESTLY, WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT IF IT SLOWS DOWN READING A BIT AND MAKES IT LOOK LIKE YOU'RE REALLY FUCKING SERIOUS ABOUT YOUR EULA, AS MOZILLA CLEARLY ARE?
I therefore argue for an EULA popup every 5 minutes.
Of course I myself will no longer be using Firefox. Back to konqueror I suppose. It would be good if someone would write some Gtk2 wrappers for webkit.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The EULA is a new thing with Firefox 3 it seems.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
if you're talking about free as in beer, then no it doesn't preclude it from being free software. but when people discuss free software in the open source sense they mean free as in speech.
EULAs, ostensibly, force users to sign away copy owner & fair use rights. such contracts go directly against the spirit of open source and free software.
Re:not free? (Score:4, Informative)
when people discuss free software in the open source sense they mean free as in speech.
No they don't.
If they did, it would be released into the public domain. Instead, it is copyrighted, with the restrictions in place relating to what that particular community thinks is an acceptable "price" for use, modification, and distribution rights. Sometimes it's truly free, like that users can do what they want in terms of using GPL software, but other times, it's not, like when you want to assert a right to distribution.
The major function of a EULA is notice. The license grant and restrictions is one or two sections of a greater document. The whole notion of a 'EULA' in general is an attempt to draw a false distinction between some kinds of SLAs and others, and to give the peanut gallery a chance to mangle semantics of utterly zero legal significance. They're all essentially the same. They all take the same form and become binding the same way. Yes, even the GPL. It's a fairly standard structure: recitals, definitions, license grant, license restriction, term and termination, warranty, liability, litigation provisions, and miscellaneous (trademark/patent license terms, export terms, international law issues, etc.).
They differ only in content and the nature of the restrictions. They're all license agreements. A license is just the grant and term. What an "end user" is or whether that's the scope of the license is up to the particular agreement, and people are entirely too sloppy with their use of the term 'EULA'--to the point that it is meaningless.
All of this is to say nothing about the obvious difference between the license on the use of the source code and the license on the use of the branded binary, which are two separate products.
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.
Re: (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
Re:not free? (Score:4, Informative)
If you approach me with a knife and I pull out a pistol and you run away I have potentially saved my life. An open mind is a good thing.
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.
Re:Who Cares? (Score:4, Interesting)
Right.
Mozilla cares about branding because they're trying to maintain a product image. They don't want people patching their code and redistributing it under their brand. Debian griped about this a lot when it came up last time, and because Mozilla stood their ground, Debian forked Firefox and called it Iceweasel.
A few months later, a Debian patch to OpenSSL was found to significantly reduce entropy, to the point where keys were easily guessable.
I think that's something everyone should think about when they blast Mozilla for their branding decisions.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
but Mozilla has every right to put an EULA on compiled binaries
This isn't really about binaries, it's about branding and trademark. Since Ubuntu likely want to use the Firefox name and branding (for familiarity), they have to comply with Mozilla's demands. If they would strip the branding and call it something else, Mozilla would have no case demanding an EULA, regardless of whether the application would be distributed as binaries or source code.
Re:not free? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:not free? (Score:5, Interesting)
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:not free? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sorry, but isn't this something that Canonical alone should be agreeing to if they're the one's whose right to use Firefox's name and logo is at risk?
I don't see the point in forcing users to agree to this, just so some company that said users have no official relationship with can retain the right to use Firefox's name and logo.
As a Firefox user, I think this is idiotic.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The EULA for Firefox deals with the use of the trademark "Firefox," only. In order to keep the trademark, they have to enforce it.
The EULA in question isn't any form of trademark enforcement. If anything it might be trying to make people aware that the marks /are/ in fact trademarks. The traditional way of doing this would be to accompany them with a TM or (R) depending on trademark status, not provide a bunch of legalese nobody in their right mind is going to read anyway.
Iceweasel etc do not claim trademark, and thus don't have an EULA.
"Iceweasel" might very well be a trademark. It might not be a /registered/ one but that doesn't not make it a trademark.
But I can just make a piece of shit browser and call it "Iceweasel" and nobody can stop me.
Not until after the fact anyway. The creators
Who needs a EULA to enforce a trademark? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Gimp. And too many others.
Re: (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 o
Re:first post (Score:5, Funny)
eat my ass you homos
You're requesting a bunch of males intimately interact with your ass. Everybody else is the 'homo'?