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

[Hank Lambert]

Thanks for clearing that up. I read an article that referred to Firefox
as "it" when describing the EULA. I thought that the "it" was the OS. I
haven't read the EULA for Firefox as I run Opera, and I guess I assumed
it had some strings attached as Debian (and Gentoo) wouldn't touch it. I
do know that Debian is very strict on what it includes however. I guess
my reaction stems from coming over from a Microsoft environment.

--Hank


Fred Moore wrote:
> 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.
>>
>>   
>>     
>
>
>   

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.