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

[Bill Smith]

Hi Hank,

I have recently loaded Opera on SuSE 10.3.  If I rotate the mouse wheel
up and down rapidly, the program abruptly attempts to open an unknown
URL, possibly from an Opera buffer somewhere.  Also, some URLs simply
freeze (as verified by opening them from another nearby computer with a
different browser). I have tried a couple versions, the latest is the
current beta.  Have noticed similar performance in both.  Have you
noticed similar operation?

BIll


On Mon, 2008-09-15 at 22:39 -0400, Hank Lambert wrote:
> 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.