Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Battle Brews Over Firefox In Ubuntu 8.10

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Kano View Post
    Well when you install iceape then you can chose it with:

    update-alternatives --config mozilla
    Yeah, yotambien, don't bother creating the symlink yourself, call another program that asks you questions to do it for you.

    Kano, it is either going to be a symlink, hardlink, or copy. The only intelligent option is symlink. You have only brought about a pointless argument to the table.

    Comment


    • #32
      Good news

      Mark Shuttleworth has just added another comment to the bug on launchpad. One of the things that he says is "at the moment, we're in detailed negotiations with a company that makes a lot of popular hardware to release their drivers as free software - they are currently proprietary. It would not be possible to hold those negotiations if every step of the way turned into a public discussion." The only company that I can think of that makes a lot of popular hardware and provides proprietory drivers is nvidia

      Comment


      • #33
        After some more thinking about the subject it really seems the best thing to make iceweasel the default but to keep firefox in the repos. So if a user really wants that slightly nicer looking icon he still can get it easily.

        Comment


        • #34
          What really puzzled me about the firefox EULA, is why Mozilla Corp are so insistent on its presence. But after Mark Shuttleworth's last launchpad comment I think that I've worked it out. Google pays Mozilla Corp a lot of money to provide the default web search in firefox, and since Firefox 2 provides half hourly phishing blacklists to Firefox browsers. The details of that agreement are probably secret. Mozilla has made an agreement with Canonical to include the EULA, but the reason why seams to be secret. So my guess is, that Mozilla are insisting on the EULA, because it is a requirement of their deal with Google. Mozilla can't say this because the Google deal contains a non disclosure clause. The EULA provided with firefox 2 contains just one clause that wasn't in th firefox 1.5 EULA a clause mentioning that the user accepts Mozilla's privacy policy. IMHO Mozilla are contractually bound to insist on Firefox users accepting the privacy policy.

          Comment


          • #35
            or maybe creative labs and their stuff.

            Comment


            • #36
              Please read Mitchell Baker's new blog post about this:

              http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2008/...icense-issues/

              Comment


              • #37
                Read it. The "Ubuntu recently included a patch that causes an End User License Agreement for Firefox to appear." line is interesting - it's sounding as if this is something Ubuntu willingly did.

                Great wording, really. Couldn't innocently shift the blame any better myself.

                Comment


                • #38
                  http://ubuntulite.tuxfamily.org/?q=node/171

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Yep, that's how you can enforce your trademark without sticking an EULA into people's noses.

                    Stick it to people who actually violate it, and after they do, instead of everyone who doesn't.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by sock View Post
                      What really puzzled me about the firefox EULA, is why Mozilla Corp are so insistent on its presence. But after Mark Shuttleworth's last launchpad comment I think that I've worked it out. Google pays Mozilla Corp a lot of money to provide the default web search in firefox, and since Firefox 2 provides half hourly phishing blacklists to Firefox browsers. The details of that agreement are probably secret. Mozilla has made an agreement with Canonical to include the EULA, but the reason why seams to be secret. So my guess is, that Mozilla are insisting on the EULA, because it is a requirement of their deal with Google. Mozilla can't say this because the Google deal contains a non disclosure clause. The EULA provided with firefox 2 contains just one clause that wasn't in th firefox 1.5 EULA a clause mentioning that the user accepts Mozilla's privacy policy. IMHO Mozilla are contractually bound to insist on Firefox users accepting the privacy policy.
                      So which was the clause that wasnt in firefox 1.5 that is in firefox 2, and is that clause and many more now in firefox 3?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10044054-92.html

                        Mozilla Chair Mitchell Baker, said in a blog post Monday that Mozilla had made a "giant error" in putting the wrong content into the end-user license agreement (EULA), which lays out how people can legally use the software.
                        "The most important thing here is to acknowledge that, yes, the content of the license agreement is wrong," Baker wrote. "The correct content is clear that the code is governed by Floss (free/libre/open-source software) licenses, not the typical end-user license agreement language that is in the current version. We created a license that points to the Floss licenses, but we've made a giant error in not getting this to Ubuntu, other distributors, and posted publicly for review. We'll correct this asap."

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          WTF!

                          How much do you want to bet this is really about money? The real question, in that case, is whether it's OK for our open source projects to be funded by cooperations, do we want that? I don't think there's anything wrong with that, in a market that's not poisoned with billions of dollars of black market money. That's not the market we have today. We have corruption in high places, massively. So is it a concern if our open source projects are in bed with that filth? Very clearly it is a concern. Does it make an absolute statement? No; concerns are not accusations.

                          If we have people saying “WTF!”....that's a separate but related issue, moral corruption. If I'm feeling angry, then I'm not going to stomach that anger. That doesn't mean there's any reason to be angry. That's not a statement about anything. It's just an expression of my feelings. If we're going to let people tell us what's appropriate for us to feel or when it's appropriate to feel or why we feel what we feel, in my extremely not humble opinion, that's the real place where we begin to lose our liberty. I understand there are rules to posting here that we have to follow those rules, but I don't think we should restrict those sorts of expressions. Right or wrong, so what. It don't mean anything. And if it makes YOU angry, that's your issue, you need to take a time out and think about it, put down that baba of alcohol and actually try and make something of yourself for a change, for Christ's sake.

                          Thanks Phoronix Community for the opportunity to discuss these things here. I don't think these are sweet it under the rug, meaningless issues. I think these are life and death, real issues. Very cool that we're talking about them here, even if the story appears to be how out of place any dissent on the issue is.


                          Be real; be sober.
                          Last edited by WSmart; 09-18-2008, 10:34 PM. Reason: !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            How many read the EULA?

                            Choose your way - choose your path:

                            User friendlyness -or- Brand protection

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X