[Leaplist] Ubuntu users now have to agree to Firefox EULA

[Fred Moore]

I really just don't view this as an issue. I have no problem at all
agreeing with any reasonable EULA. If you go to the web site and
download the newest (disto are never current) you sign a EULA, so whats
the difference.. And to correct Hank, its not the OS it Firefox the
first time Firefox is started.. Fred

Bryan J. Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 9/15/08, Hank Lambert <hank at hanklambert.com> wrote:
>   
>> It appears that Ubuntu is now requiring users to agree to a
>> Firefox EULA before being allowed to use the OS in the next
>> release. From what I've read, after installation, the user
>> is presented with a EULA from Mozilla that they must agree
>> to when booting the machine for the first time. Debian chose
>> not to go that route by rebranding Firefox as Iceweasel.
>> I wonder if this is going to become normal in Linux?
>> http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/14/195203
>>     
>
> There are several issues, many legal, some even technical.David Evans <devans002 at insight.rr.com>
>
> If a distro provides significant code to The Mozilla
> Foundation and/or has a signed, legal agreement (typically
> one has the other as well, by the virtue of the level of
> the code contributions requiring additional, legal
> agreements), with The Mozilla Foundation, then they
> typically don't run into this.  I.e., they are allowed to
> redistribute Firefox as part of their OS without the
> additional click.
>
> People forget that Canonical, including Ubuntu (as pertinent),
> is still much smaller than, say, a Novell or Red Hat --
> both revenue and, more significantly here, code contribution
> wise, which avoids a lot of these "redistribution" issues.
> They also don't have the overall community resources of
> Debian, at least on these "less cool" projects than a lot
> of the desktop interoperability that Canonical/Ubuntu usually
> focuses on.
>
> So Canonical/Ubuntu has to either choose to adopt Debian's
> IceWeasel approach (possibly leveraging their work), or opt
> for the other option The Mozilla Foundation is giving them.
> People shouldn't expect them to be able to fund the
> development and/or contribute-sign the agreements that
> Red Hat or Novell do.  It's just a necessary evil, and no one
> should criticize Canonical/Ubuntu, or even The Mozilla
> Foundation for that matter (they have some sound, legal, and
> at least a few good technical ones I've heard) for doing
> this.
>
> BTW, this is my "outside viewpoint."  I could be off-the-mark.
>
>   


-- 
Lots of soaring generalities, without a single hard fact in sight. Saves 
the trouble of having to do research.
Fred/WD8KNI