AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP

[William Grant]

Binary package hint: firefox-3.0

STARTING UP A CERTAIN 3.0.2 VERSION OF FIREFOX BROWSER MAKES AVAILABLE TO YOU A VERY CAPITAL END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT. THIS AGREEMENT IS OBNOXIOUS and largely irrelevant to Ubuntu users.

The license refers to installation and closed-source parts which ARE COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT TO UBUNTU USERS.

THE LICENSE PAGE ALSO DOES NOT PREVENT ME FROM USING THE BROWSER WITHOUT AGREEING TO IT.

It deserves capital punishment DUE TO EXCESSIVE USE OF CAPS.

----------
Come on Mozilla. This is just stupid.

[Brian Curtis (bcurtiswx)]

I cannot see how this is a bug. The notification is a one-time thing and can be closed and ignored.

[William Grant (wgrant)]

No other common piece of software does this, and Firefox never has before.

[Sarah Kowalik (hobbsee-deactivatedaccount)]

Yeah....what is with this? Milestoning to get it on the release team radar.

[nullack (nullack)]

Brian, please allow me to explain my point of view with this.

Firstly, as William has noted, if I object or simply dont agree to the licence what do I do? I can keep going on without in anyway indicating I accept it.

My biggest objection though, and one I think would be shared by many, is that I don't want to sit there, study and consider the license in any detail. One of the chief attributes of Ubuntu is the licence it comes with and I dont want to have to analyse how this effects me as a user with firefox potentially changing the licence.

if the licence of firefox in no way limits what I can do in the same way as the other software in a default ubuntu build there is no reason to show the user it.

if the licence of firefox is different and requires special consideration, then that alarms me.

[Mark Shuttleworth (sabdfl)]

Mozilla Corp asked that this be added in order for us to continue to call the browser Firefox. Since Firefox is their trademark, which we intend to respect, we have the choice of working with Mozilla to meet their requirements, or switching to an unbranded browser.

It's strongly our preference, and that of most of our users, to have Firefox as the browser in Ubuntu.

I think it's perfectly reasonable for Mozilla to have requirements and guidelines for the use of their trademark - we have the same for Ubuntu, and many other free software projects do the same. I would in fact consider it a best practice to have a good brand on a free software project, which means having trademark guidelines.

That said, I would not consider an EULA as a best practice. It's unfortunate that Mozilla feels this is absolutely necessary, but they do, and none of us are in a position to be experts about the legal constraints which Mozilla feels apply to them. We had extensive conversations with Mozilla in order to find the best possible way of meeting their requirements while preserving the flow of use of the system for our users.

Please feel free to make constructive suggestions as to how we can meet Mozilla's requirements while improving the user experience. It's not constructive to say "WTF?", nor is it constructive to rant and rave in allcaps. Your software freedoms are built on legal grounds, as are Mozilla's rights in the Firefox trademark. To act as though your rights are being infringed misses the point of free software by a mile.

I believe we have a new package in Intrepid, called abrowser, which uses the codebase behind Firefox without invoking the Firefox trade mark.

[nullack (nullack)]

Can I suggest please Mark that the page that shows this license Mozilla require have a link to another page, or possibly some wording within the existing page, that is a plain english FAQ like explanation. It could explain in plain english what the basic situation is. When I was confronted with it, my immediate questions in mind were what is this and how does this effect me? Then, dam, I dont want to spend the time having to understand this. A plain english FAQ could address topics like:

* why its necessary
* how it does / does not change what rights I have to modify the software, give it to others etcetc
* what it means in practice

If the single issue is just their trademark, I think Mozilla deserve our respect and recognition of the software they have built. Its a good browser and I'm thankful to them for it.

As you say Mark, I'm not a legal expert - I have faith in your judgement and those at Ubuntu who are skilled in the legal area. Im an ICT Project expert, I'd like to continue contributing my time to add value in that area that I know, and for someone skilled specifically in the legal area to explain what this means for me and other enthusiasts of your project.

[Andrew (fishpie)]

It would be nice if there was a very brief piece of text that appeared just above the eula explaining that the eula is a requirement of Mozilla Corp and that that those who did not wish to be bound by it could use abrowser instead, and an apturl link to abrowser could be included. I think the explanation is necessary as the eula feels very 'unubuntuy' in fact at first I assumed that its presence was the result of a packaging bug. It would also be nice if there was an obvious way to find the licence again, for those like me who agree in haste, and later want to find out what it was they agreed to. I appreciate the need for the eula, but its presence was really jarring, and the CAPITALS made it worse.

[Brian Curtis (bcurtiswx)]

I do see everyones point so far. I'm sorry if i made myself appear ignorant with my first post. I have always taken EULA as an explanation to others on how to use their product in a professional manner. I also said ignore in the context that most of us have seen enough EULA to get a general understanding of what they all typically say and typically choose to close it out without reading it. I agree with what everyone is mentioning now, and I appreciate the respect you've all given me, and I hope I haven't been disrespectful unintentionally. Thanks for the explanation Mark, and Andrew I like your idea!

[Mark Shuttleworth (sabdfl)]

The idea of a link to a plain English agreement and FAQ is an excellent
one, thanks! That could also describe the abrowser package.

[Andrew (fishpie)]

Brian,
The reason that the firefox eula has raised eyebrows is because firefox is installed by default and resides in the main repository. Ubuntu takes a pragmatic approach to free software, reluctantly allowing proprietary drivers into the kernel, making proprietary software easy to install and including Mozilla's non free artwork. This approach upsets some free software advocates. Debian refuses to ship firefox and instead distributes icedove(firefox without the trademarks and non free artwork) I don't think that you have been at all disrespectful. If you are used to using proprietary software EULAs seem completely natural. If you have used mostly linux and free software for years, a EULA stands out like a sore thumb.

[rawsausage (rawsausage)]

I would like to point out that click-through EULAs are legally void in many countries, such as for instance Finland.

The point there is that the threshold to just click fast through is extremely low. Any legal agreements that were agreed by a party are void, unless if all parties understood at least approximately what they were going to agree about. In electronic context the other party (in this case, Mozilla) can not verify the level of understandment at all. There is not even the slightest guarantee that the other party even actually saw any of that legalese at all. In fact, acting as if the process is valid at this moment leads to Mozilla committing a felony of misleading on purpose (that is, if there is a significant demand for anything ever from their part).

The same in plain English: Nearly no one is going to read the text at all anyways, or even attempt.

Personally, I would take great pleasure taking them into court around here (if that ever was possible) and wiping the floor with them. That being impossible works the other way as well though. I can safely ignore anything Mozilla could ever demand from me. However, that is only one part of the issue. That REAL part of the issue is that such license popups are as bad usability as it ever comes. They obstruct the users from doing tasks for completing their real life tasks, which is a grave sin.

[William Grant (wgrant)]

Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
> Mozilla Corp asked that this be added in order for us to continue to
> call the browser Firefox. Since Firefox is their trademark, which we
> intend to respect, we have the choice of working with Mozilla to
> meet their requirements, or switching to an unbranded browser.
>
> It's strongly our preference, and that of most of our users, to have
> Firefox as the browser in Ubuntu.

While I agree that keeping the Firefox name in Ubuntu is a good idea,
requests like this seem to provide good reasons to rethink this
position. The web browser is almost always going to be a user's first
impression of Ubuntu. Firefox, the current default web browser, is also
the only application in the default installation to present a EULA on
first start. It feels invasive to me, and a little frightening: I'm not
used to being required to read legal text in order to use applications
included with Ubuntu.

> I think it's perfectly reasonable for Mozilla to have requirements
> and guidelines for the use of their trademark - we have the same for
> Ubuntu, and many other free software projects do the same. I would in
> fact consider it a best practice to have a good brand on a free
> software project, which means having trademark guidelines.

Brand is definitely of great importance - Mozilla Corporation should
ensure that Firefox's is only used appropriately. But many feel that
some of their restrictions are rather too onerous, and I feel that
mandating this EULA is going too far.

> That said, I would not consider an EULA as a best practice. It's
> unfortunate that Mozilla feels this is absolutely necessary, but they
> do, and none of us are in a position to be experts about the legal
> constraints which Mozilla feels apply to them. We had extensive
> conversations with Mozilla in order to find the best possible way of
> meeting their requirements while preserving the flow of use of the
> system for our users.

I am somewhat frightened that Mozilla would require a EULA which is so
waffly and contains so little substance. I also fail to see how not
carrying Firefox branding breaks "the flow of use of the system". Recall
that much of the world uses Internet Explorer, and doesn't know of the
Firefox brand in the first place.

This EULA also says strange things - that other packages might have
other licenses, for example. Why is it saying that? No other package
states that. Does it perhaps refer to the Firefox installer that we've
never used and never will? The agreement also states that portions of
the source code are available - if it is in main it must all be
available. Many parts of this EULA seem irrelevant and unnecessarily
frightening.

Why was such a change not brought up and discussed on ubuntu-devel
before it was made? This keeping of the community in the dark is highly
concerning. We were not told this change was happening. We were not
advised such discussions were happening. This bug was responded to right
from the top; everybody involved must have known well this was going to
be controversial. Canonical is not Ubuntu, and invasive changes like
this should be discussed with the community.

> Please feel free to make const...

[Dana Goyette (danagoyette)]

One of my primary gripes with the EULAs of many pieces of software is this: they're almost universally written in dense legalese and all caps (YELLING), and often have just plain weird sections (for example, iTunes saying not to use it for "chemical, nuclear, or biological weaponry"). In fact, simply applying sentence case to an EULA will usually render it drastically more readable.

Compare the Firefox EULA to the Windows Vista EULA... even if you disagree with the terms of the latter, you still have to admit that it's formatted very well -- it's written in plain English, with proper capitalization, outline numbering, indenting, and such.
Perhaps Canonical should get on Mozilla's case about improving the EULA document itself, if nothing else.

[Michael Casadevall (mcasadevall)]

When I upgraded to the next version of firefox, I was shocked to discover that there was an EULA, and I also believed that this is a bug. There is no need for this legalese or EULA, I'd go as far that requiring one violates the GPL and LGPL Firefox is licensed under since it adds additional restrictions. If we can't redistribute firefox without this EULA, then I believe firefox must be debranded and removed from main, this is simply not acceptable.

[arekkusu (arekkusu-r)]

I guess this will turn more into a forum discussion than a bug repport... anyway it's not really a bug.

I just think it's unreasonable from Mozilla to ask that. I can understand Mozilla wanting to protect their brand but that is going to far and I just don't see what Mozilla gains from doing that. It's not like Ubuntu is shipping a much modified version of the software anyway.

If it would be me to decide I would just change the name to "Ubuntu Web Browser" (no need to create a new fancy name IMHO) and just change the artwork. That's it. I don't think it would pose much problem to the user experience.

[arekkusu (arekkusu-r)]

I guess this will turn more into a forum discussion than a bug repport... anyway it's not really a bug.

I just think it's unreasonable from Mozilla to ask that. I can understand Mozilla wanting to protect their brand but that is going to far and I just don't see what Mozilla gains from doing that. It's not like Ubuntu is shipping a much modified version of the software anyway.

If it would be me to decide I would just change the name to "Ubuntu Web Browser" (no need to create a new fancy name IMHO) and just change the artwork. That's it. I don't think it would pose much problem to the user experience.

Just do it !

[Daniel Letzeisen (dtl131)]

If Mozilla insists on being litigious, now would be a good time to take a cue from Debian and adopt Iceweasel/Icedove as Ubuntu's default browser & e-mail (having Swiftweasel/Swiftdove in the universe repo would be nice too). This seems the most "pragmatic" thing to do.

[Vadim Peretokin (vperetokin)]

Seeing an EULA the first time you launch a browser might be a bit odd to new users, it's not such a huge usability problem. People are used to it.

However the brand name is (kinda) important, some a few people know about Firefox. imho, it doesn't make a diff if they rebrand it or keep the eula, same issues here and there.

(sorry, didn't cover the whole screaming freedom thing, imho those are issued a person would need to sort out themselves if they care so much about it)

[Anders Aagaard (aagaande)]

Time to consider epiphany/webkit for the next release? Ubuntu is built around gnome after all.

[Andrius Štikonas (stikonas)]

Users can switch abrowser if they want but the name and artwork of abrowser is worse than Debian's Iceweasel (which IMHO is much better name than abrowser). Are there any plans to rename abrowser in the future?

[Fred (eldmannen+launchpad)]

I would like to see Iceweasel in the repository, if its not already there.

Also, perhaps SFLC (Software Freedom Law Center) could help us?

Why does it have to display the EULA? Does the Windows version do that too? Or is it because we include Ubufox?

[Andrius Štikonas (stikonas)]

Is is because we apply patches and distribute modified version of Firefox. And Mozilla trademark policies are quite restrictive, if you want to modify browser you have to do as Mozilla says or rebrand the browser.

[mlx (myxal-mxl)]

Would it be possible/acceptable to display the EULA during Ubuntu install? I figure if pragmatism is the goal, then 'hiding' the EULA here could satisfy Mozilla while not stirring up the general users with changing the browser/displaying EULA at Firefox startup.

Of course, the whole thing rests on how important it is for Ubuntu to have the Firefox branded browser. I have no idea what the most of users expect to see when they try ubuntu (in many cases for the first time, mind you). Maybe if you took Iceweasel and branded it with icons which are similiar in color to Firefox - for example, take the globe and put the orange ubuntu 'circle' segment around it. You get the idea - similiar enough for Firefox users to notice it, but different enough to keep the lawsuits away ;-) Once they start it up, they probably won't care it's not called firefox.

[Vadim Peretokin (vperetokin)]

The windows version does that the EULA. I got one when I upgraded firefox to
version 3 in virtualbox.

[Ralf Nieuwenhuijsen (ralf-nieuwenhuijsen)]

An EULA is just unacceptable.

This is not hate or anger; just common sense. Installing Ubuntu then suddenly becomes "the lawyers have to look at some EULA" ..

Not acceptable by default. Firefox can be offered in add/remove or as a link, or even a sort of wizard; but we can't have the risk of people clicking through EULA's in the name of their company. We can't also, everywhere, make sure we can legally accept the EULA.

I don't really understand what Mozilla is doing...
 - this is making it difficult to preinstall firefox
 - this is making installing Ubuntu a lawyer related question

At least offer an EULA-free Ubuntu-spin. EULA's are legally speaking much much more difficult to work with than (and this is ironic!) closed-source software.

[Vadim Peretokin (vperetokin)]

Not having a web browser at installation is worse.

And, ethnically speaking, you already agree to EULA's implicitly when you
install Ubuntu - to all of the GPL's and other licenses. Having one
presented to you so you have a choice of declining it is, well, better.

[jaduncan (jaduncan)]

This does indeed add an entirely different level of legal due diligence which must be done before use can be verified by legal.

The clauses are further restrictions on the GPL (problematic for derivatives), and I think at the very least it should have an explanation stating that the EULA has been added by Mozilla and does not apply to any other program.

I'd have the dialogue box offer to install abrowser if the EULA is declined. Option boxes would be something like (and I'm a law student, not a HCI guy so I'm aware wording could be better).

'Agree and start firefox' 'Disagree and quit' 'Use abrowser (Ubuntu's unbranded firefox)'

IMO applying EULAs to things in main is an *extremely* bad idea as it makes the freedoms that main claims to represent invalid. Surely firefox should now live in restricted.

[jaduncan (jaduncan)]

No attorney/client relationships are created by the above comment, obviously. It is merely comment, not legal opinion in any form.

[KUmo (shiragumo)]

In my opinion this EULA should be shown and agreed upon on install time and not when the browser is opened for the first time. Something similar to what the java-6-sun package does.

[Ralf Nieuwenhuijsen (ralf-nieuwenhuijsen)]

There are a lot of powerfull brands that are not installed by default but available in add/remove, for various reasons. Firefox is the _only_ package where 'brand' recognition is even brought to table as an argument in favor of inclusion. I don't get that.

Azureus is more popular (in the Windows ecosystem) than Transmission, but transmission is much better choice for a default install.

Amarok is more popular (has more brand recognition) than Rhythmbox, but rhythmbox is much better choice for a default gnome install.

Firefox is more popular on Windows than icedove (or whatever), but Icedove just became the much better choice.

Instead of hoping the Ubuntu brand becomes more popular because of Firefox, we've reached the point where firefox is hurting the Ubuntu brand. The brand that should be on the table is that of Ubuntu. There are so many separate parts of the experience, from the linux kernel, gnu-toolkit upto the desktop environments. Imagine all those brands getting the same treatment as Firefox?

Mark, please consider the fact that, __this creates a presedence__. We might not like it, it might even hurt Ubuntu, but you've got to draw the line _somewhere_.

Mozilla is interfering with the creation of the ultimate operating system. What's next? Demanding Evolution gets replaced by Thunderbird? Or else we can't legally ship firefox and _call it_ firefox.

Enough is enough.

What people feared that would happen, back when the trademark issue come up, is exactly what is happening. We might not like it, but the mozilla name has got to go. At least until they fire their new CEO .. which appearantly definately needs to happen soon. We, the nerds installing it on every machiene we got our hands on, made them big and we'll bring 'em down.

Perhaps it's time for a fork? And couldn't the Ubuntu foundation use the google and yahoo dollars that they pay to Mozilla? Don't call it abrowser .. how about uBrowser .. and install it _instead of firefox_

[shockawe5 (shockawe5)]

If Mozilla wants an EULA, let them have it. Firefox is a great browser, is open source, and is perfectly compatible with Windows. That to me is more valuable than having an EULA appear that no one reads and everyone agrees to anyway.

If this turns out to be a real problem to everyone, check out what Epiphany is doing with Webkit. Very cool.

[Ralf Nieuwenhuijsen (ralf-nieuwenhuijsen)]

@Vadim

>Not having a web browser at installation is worse.

We could install the unbranded version by default!

>And, ethnically speaking,

You mean legally...

>you already agree to EULA's implicitly when you
install Ubuntu - to all of the GPL's and other licenses. Having one
presented to you so you have a choice of declining it is, well, better.

GPL is not an EULA. GPL is a liscence from the author to whoever wants it to distrobute. The right to distrobute is not one you get by default; you have to explicitely get permission from the author; which is what the GPL Is. The GPL only applies when you are _distrobuting_ ..

Which is completely different from an EULA ..which puts restrictions on the USER.
So, if I download Ubuntu and give it to you, it's because the GPL lets me do that.
You, the receiving party, have agreed to nothing.

So, like I said before, EULA's are more problematic than closed-source software.

[jaduncan (jaduncan)]

@ Vadim

The GPL and other free software licenses are copyright licenses, not use licenses. Don't confuse them. Use of the software as opposed to redistribution is unrestricted.

Use licenses in main are a new and worrying thing.

No attorney/client relationship is created, this is not legal advice, etc ad nausiam.

[Dread Knight (dread.knight)]

I am a kubuntu/kde4 user; here is my point of view on some of the browsers:
I think google’s browser Chrome would have an EULA as well, so it would not be a solution; i consider it very user friendly, but as it is, doesn’t fit very very with the rest of the applications since it doesn’t respect the HIG by not having a menu bar (i find menu bars very 60’s anyway).

Konqueror, although it has a lot of features, shouldn’t even be installed by default since it’s not really worthy as a browser; khtml is rather defunct and i’m really looking forward to (k)Webkit implementation. I use most of the google services, especially gmail and i find the chat a must have feature, can’t just forget about it for the sake of using Konqueror. My main usage for this browser is as a FTP client.

Arora is a very neat qt-browser.

I’ve used IceWeasel for quite some time, i kinda like it.

<b>Firefox -QT i think it won’t really be maintained by Mozilla Foundation and imho it should get it’s own name (and get active maintainers of course). Consider this as branch of Firefox; could be used on both Gnome and KDE with proper integration (plugins anyone?).
Also qt 4.5 as i understand is able to get native GTK+ look as well, so i wonder if it can use the GTK+ file menu in Gnome, like when you are browsing your computer when to save a file or selecting one. </b>

[Ante Karamatić (ivoks)]

It just looks like blackmailing (Why now, when it's almost impossible to change default browser in Intrepid? Why not when Canonical and Mozilla agreed to ship modified Firefox?). IMHO, we shouldn't agree on that. Firefox isn't the only browser and for sure it's loosing the 'best browser for linux' title.

Mozilla is slapping it's own face. I doubt they figure that out until is too late.

[Tom Arnold (g0tt)]

If this is accepted, this will get out of hand at some point.

I can see Google Chrome doing the same etc.

Do we want to have a Linux distro for human beings that is plastered with EULAs?

I just don't. Reading EULAs is not software freedom IMNSHO.

Taking Iceweasel and telling users that it based on Firefox so that they know where to look for addons etc might be a good option.

It will be interesting to see how Novell and Red Hat handle this. ( Or Fedora and OpenSuse for that matter. )

( A hostile aproach would be to change the Firefox ID (or whatever) so that Google does not pay Mozilla for all the google searches _we_ do. Losing a few million Ubuntu heavy users might persuade Mozilla to treat their users a bit more respectfully and not bother them with EULAs. But I am not sugesting that. Just wanted to mention it. )

[Fred (eldmannen+launchpad)]

Vadim Peretokin,
The GPL is a software license, it is _NOT_ a EULA.

[Fred (eldmannen+launchpad)]

Lets do it Chinese-style, rename it to Godzilla Firecox.

[motang (mohan-ram)]

I personally don't see any problem with this. But I do get the point at why now, it hasn't been done before and why all of a sudden now. Well I think whatever happens, if I have a choice of adding Firefox or removing it I am all for. But please don't make it so that there will no Firefox at all, as I use Ubuntu on all my computers and my parents recognize the web browser as Firefox on my Asus Eee Box running Xubuntu.

[Ralf Nieuwenhuijsen (ralf-nieuwenhuijsen)]

@Alex

Perhaps for the home user it is acceptable to just click some EULA that isn't legally upholding anyway.
But this destroys Ubuntu for corporate usage. Every application that is offered to the users and that ships with a EULA will need that EULA to be verified by the lawyers.

Since an open source operating system contains a lot of different software using a lot of different trademarks and everything; this could lead to situtation where there are too many EULA's ..and deploying linux becomes the more expensive option.

Besides, there is enough trademark confusion anyway. Is it firefox? Is it Ubuntu? Is it gnome? Is is Linux? Is it Debian?

We might even consider having less trademarks a good thing. Just one: Ubuntu.

[Andy Price (andy-price)]

If it is decided to rename Firefox to abrowser, or Iceweasel, or whatever, to get around the EULA issue, then could we keep sending the Firefox UA string to servers so that sites which sniff UA strings to disallow "unsupported" browsers keep working? Popular online banking sites often seem to do this, unfortunately. If the UA string is considered part of Mozilla's branding, could we ask them to make an exception on this one small, but important point? It could benefit Debian's Iceweasel users too.

[Przemek K. (azrael)]

For the sake of clarity
Firefox rebranded in Debian = Iceweasel, not Icedove
Thunderbird rebranded in Debian = Icedove
SeaMonkey (formerly Mozilla Suite) rebranded in Debian = Iceape
For more info see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_software_rebranding

[Andrius Štikonas (stikonas)]

@Andy

Firefox UA string is not part of Firefox Branding. Even IE includes Mozilla/4.0 in its UA and that doesn't force Microsoft to agree to Mozilla trademark policy. So we can use whatever UA we want.

[Vadim Peretokin (vperetokin)]

The GPL states that the software comes with no warranty and that the author
is not liable for any damages that you receive.

So I waive my rights to sue the author if his software causes damages to me
when I start using it afaik, which is binding to me, the end user.

[Daniël H. (daan-is-here)]

'WTF?' haha ;)

Doesn't the same also apply to OpenOffice.org?

Can't the Ubuntu-help give a simply overview of the used EULA's in the products like Firefox, OO.o etc.?

[Greg A (etulfetulf)]

@ Przemysław Kulczycki

Firefox rebranded in Debian = IceCat (it used to be IceWeasel)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_IceCat

[Daniël H. (daan-is-here)]

I don't see any problem by renaming it to 'Webbrowser' and change the icon.

[Hebert (hebert-bernardo)]

@Greg Auger

I can assure you (Using Debian SID right Now ) that the default browser is Iceweasel.

[Jane Silber (silbs)]

I don't think Ubuntu/Canonical should *write* a "plain English" version of someone else's license. Obviously Mozilla has written the license in the language they want our users to read and understand, and our interpretation of that may not be the same as Mozilla's or the law's interpretation. I think *presenting* such an explanation is a good idea however, and I will ask Mozilla Corp if they can/will provide a "plain English" version to be used in a FAQ-type explanation for our users (or even consider making the EULA more readable).

[Przemek K. (azrael)]

@Greg Auger
"Firefox rebranded in Debian = IceCat"
No, it's not. The link that you provided clearly shows that IceCat is a part of the GNU project, not Debian project.
Besides, Debian's package search shows no results for IceCat:
http://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=icecat
And Iceweasel is present there:
http://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=iceweasel

[mlx (myxal-mxl)]

@Ralf:
I see your point that adding EULA of any sort brings too much trouble for corporate, but let's face it: users aren't getting more educated and I think many of them WILL be looking for the "fox under the globe", just like they are looking for the "blue 'e' " on Windows (TM)(R)(C).

Since, as I understand it, Mozilla isn't backing down, I see two "least resistance/least collateral damage" options:
>do your own "ubuntu" branding for Icewhatever, making it obvious for Firefox users that "here's the browser". The default IceCat and IceWeasel branding seem "too different" for Firefox users to notice immediately.
>alternatively, let them choose the browser during installation. Would setting it to Icewhatever, with another option being Firefox (that would show the EULA in the subsequent step) do?

[TAC one (tacone)]

Leaving aside how much does this sucks..
couldn't we just hack the start page for the first time ?
Sometime when you install a firefox extension, after rebooting the browser you're shown a tab with the extension instructions.

So the flow could be like this:
- joe open the browser
- the start page contains a nicely formatted-no-all-caps eula.
- joe goes on gmail/digg/whatever, then closes the browser.
- joe opens the browser again
- the start page he sees is the default ubuntu one.

I believe this could be less intrusive. Sucks anyway, but maybe some artwork could render the eula more pleasant.

[Michele Costantino Soccio (michelinux)]

Maybe it should be better to include the terms of Firefox EULA within the Ubuntu EULA which is presented to the user during the installation.
In any case even in Windows the EULA is not showed at the first run, but at the installation. Let's manage this through APT!

[Bob/Paul (ubuntu-launchpad-bobpaul)]

@Andrius and @Andy:

Here is some information regarding the UA in Debian's Iceweasel: http://www.geticeweasel.org/useragent/

On a different note, does anyone have a link to the EULA or know how to recall it? I saw it the first 3 times I used Firefox after updating to 8.10alpha (I don't think I closed firefox correctly for various reasons and so the EULA appeared even though I had closed it) but I never did read it thoroughly and about:eula doesn't work.

Without having read it thoroughly I would rather see the EULA in a proper dialog with OK and Cancel (or yes and now... whatever) as well as an "I agree" check box as in common in the proprietary software world. I would also like to see a link for EULA in the Help menu, perhaps just above About. This should bring up the EULA with the "I agree" box already checked. As much as I hate EULAs, if you're going to present one at least do it properly and in a manner consistent with how users expect to see EULAs. One should not be able to use the browser without agreeing to the EULA. Period.

That said, I would much rather see Ubuntu rebrand Firefox than submit to an EULA. As I said, I haven't read it thoroughly (or even at all) but I have trouble thinking of anything a USER could do that would violate Firefox's trademarks. Now a developer redistributing Firefox... well, that's another story, but that's covered by the Mozilla License and not an EULA anyway. If it's installed on MY system there should not be any restrictions on how I USE the software.

[Ben Aceler (aceler)]

IMHO, firefox can be renamed as Daniël H. said, into something obvious. The problem is deeper - Mozilla maybe first, but not last software product, which have they own trademark and/or other restrictions, and Ubuntu needs some mechanism to solve such problems in the future.

[Tiago Silva (tiagosilva)]

I haven't used Intrepid since it's alpha-3 state but I'm rather curious about this whole subjet.

Let just stick with the user's experience for a moment, under a live desktop session.
If my memory is correct, are probably the steps to follow:

- Puts CD
- Selects the system & keyboard languages, able to custom a few settings if needed
- System boots and you can see that little Firefox icon in the gnome-panel
(Let's not ignore that firefox is not a dependency of ubuntu-desktop, but rather a recomendation)
- If I click that icon, from what I read in this bug report to some sort of license compliance dialog.

Now, let's assume that categorically assert to deny compliance to that license.
* What options to I have after that?
* Are there other browsers (other than w3m) tagging along?
I'm asking these questions to cover hypothetical situations where people need a browser but do not have access to internet.
*Will it be abrowser package be shipped in Intrepid?
* Exactly how much depended is Ubuntu from Firefox, as there seems to be a effort of development around plug-ins and service (e.g. Launchpad) integration for Firefox.

Thank you.

[Ben Aceler (aceler)]

Another problem is, that Ubuntu is also a LiveCD. If firefox will ask for it's EULA every time you boot, you will crush the CD shortly.

[Max Rabkin (max-rabkin)]

I'd just like to +1 the following:

* Keeping EULAs out of Ubuntu. EULAs are usability bugs: not only are they horrible, but one is obliged to either read them or risk breaking the law. By using Ubuntu, I know I am legally on safe ground. Obviously packages in multiverse may have to show EULAs, but that is at install-time.

* Dropping Firefox from the default install, if necessary to achieve the above. I will certainly not run it myself.

* Using Debian's IceWeasel. A proliferation of rebranded Firefoxen is useless diversity, since they essentially offer nothing different. "abrowser" is a horrible name. Perhaps the IceWeasel brand will eventually gain some recognition itself.

[Scott Kitterman (kitterman)]

Kumo: The java-6-sun packages that require you to accept a license are in Multiverse and not in the Main repository.

[Andrius Štikonas (stikonas)]

Debian was the first, Ubuntu is the second. But now it is quite clear that all distributions will have to accept either using EULA or rebrand Firefox. If we choose to rebrand maybe the best choice is as Max Rabkin said to use Iceweasel so that there will be less proliferation.

[Daniël H. (daan-is-here)]

'On a different note, does anyone have a link to the EULA or know how to recall it? I saw it the first 3 times I used Firefox after updating to 8.10alpha (I don't think I closed firefox correctly for various reasons and so the EULA appeared even though I had closed it) but I never did read it thoroughly and about:eula doesn't work.'

http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/legal/eula/firefox-en.html

[IC Raibow (icrbow)]

Go for webkit epiphany. We're based on GNOME after all. Those, who need FF's plugins could install it with all that EULA stuff.

[Przemek K. (azrael)]

Java-6-sun will not be needed anymore because we have a free and compatible openjdk in Intrepid.

I'm also for using Iceweasel. User won't feel the difference as long as we keep sure that all things work (plugin installations, extensions, sites that detect user agents). Iceweasel could have "(like Firefox)" appended to it's user agent string.

We need to show Mozilla that they're policy is wrong, that's the only way to make them change it.

[Bernhard Schuster (drahnr)]

Do it like the debian devs did: Use Iceweasel instead and forget firefox

[TAC one (tacone)]

I like the Iceweasel option very much. But I think having firefox
installed by default is very cool, and helps Ubuntu and Firefox brands
to enforce each other.

I think further effort to talk with Mozilla should be done in first place.

[Dylan McCall (dylanmccall)]

Let's also look at this from the perspective of someone who does not accept the EULA. They are now (legally) without a web browser and must figure out how to install Epiphany via the help documents.

That is user-hostile. That is ugly. That is inconsistent. the user has already installed the operating system and Firefox, being a default component, should thus be ready to use. EULA unchecked is not ready to use. If this gets into release, we will have to remove every claim that Ubuntu is ready with a full suite of software after installation.

On a different note, I too am on the Epiphany bandwagon -- even if it's Gecko Epiphany. It will be especially important with future GNOME releases that include Telepathy and the like, since having a well integrated web browser (which Firefox only pretends to be on the surface) will become very important. That is not a discussion for here, though.

If we use a debranded Firefox by default, we may as well drop the thing entirely. The reason we use Firefox by default now is because it is a big name; users see it and feel a bit more comfortable with Ubuntu. If that is replaced with a cold, unknown name like IceWeasel, that plan backfires completely.
If this involves a software switch, we may as well switch to a browser that follows the GNOME release cycle and works properly in this desktop environment. The choices are limited but friendly.

[Vadim Peretokin (vperetokin)]

http://www.google.com/trends?q=iceweasel%2C+firefox

"Ubuntu Web Browser" as someone suggested would work better. Users do have a
association with Firefox, but we can't have that, at least a "Ubuntu Web
Browser" is more descriptive and makes more sense than "Iceweasel".

[Sebastian Bengtsson (5ebastian)]

Perhaps we could put the EULA together with an explanatory text in the Welcome to Firefox tab that opens on first run. That way it would not be an aggressive in-your-face popup. This would improve the user experience side of things.
It would also be better to put any and all EULAs in the OS installation phase, as agreeing to use a software belongs with installation, not with trying to surf the web, etc.

Working with Mozilla to get the EULA in readable form (no ALL-CAPS) also sounds like a pragmatic way to reduce the amount of bad user experience this creates. (Damage reduction with respect to the Ubuntu brand.)

The Ubuntu brand is built around a continually improving out-of-the-box experience. When introducing new users to Ubuntu I have often said things like
"You get all of this right from the start because this is what free software enables one to do."
Following up on that with "Oh, oops, that's just some EULA. It says legaly binding? Never mind, its nothing important." seems a good way to put off new adopters.

The Firefox brand is i.m.o. important to Ubuntu. Having Icethis or Swiftthat is not the same. Firefox is still the single most well known free software example for windows users. Firefox lends credibility to software a new user might otherwise never have tried. "You'll get Firefox and OpenOffice - and all the other software on Ubuntu is made in the same spirit as Firefox and OpenOffice."

From previous comments it appears to me that we get this EULA headache because we have modified Firefox. (Is this a correct?) It appears that Mozilla wants to protect its trademark by warning the user this might not be on par with what the Firefox brand promises. But we are not trying to make some "other version" of Firefox, we are trying to make the original Firefox experience work on our platform. Would it be possible to move the Ubuntu modifications into upstream? Create an official version of Mozilla Firefox for the Ubuntu platform, and thus "worthy" of official Mozilla branding. "Make partnership, not trench war."

[Shaze (theshaze)]

First a separate, however related note; I would like to touch on a previously mentioned statement regarding the fact that we are discussing this on Launchpad. Mark and whomever at Canonical that participated in said "discussions" with Mozilla, and did *not* think this was a decision for the community has done a great disservice to the trust we place in them.

There is no excuse for the timing and seeming ignorance in allowing this to be the path at which the community now has to address the issue to Mozilla. The lack of trust and experience is simply offensive; If we can get Google to change their EULA for Chrome on Windows, surely we can pressure them and Mozilla to *drop* the EULA in Linux.

Secondly, it would be setting a terrible precedent to allow the *pre-installed* packages on Ubuntu to contain EULA's; regardless of popularity. If Firefox demands this, then let them enter the realm of restricted crap like Java and Codecs in the repository's and let the community decide what to replace it with.

[Andrius Štikonas (stikonas)]

Dylan McCall: Most people use Firefox because of its features and GUI and not because of name.

[Mark Shuttleworth (sabdfl)]

Jane Silber wrote:
> I don't think Ubuntu/Canonical should *write* a "plain English" version
> of someone else's license.

Good point :-)

[TAC one (tacone)]

As Sebastian Bengtsson, putting the eula in the first page would be nice.

Would be even nicer (but thats depends on Mozilla lawyers, and I don't
think it will be feasible) creating a page like the creative commons
one:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
Such page would link or (better) embedd the full eula in a textarea.

Since i don't think it will be feasible (but maybe worth a try ?) i'd
go with the Ubuntu Web Browser idea.

[Remco (remco47)]

I suggest shipping Epiphany instead of Firefox. Epiphany has better integration with Ubuntu anyway. Firefox/abrowser/Iceweasel are for power-users. Most people only need to type addresses and create bookmarks. Epiphany is adequate for those people.

[Staffan Björnesjö (staffan-bjornesjo)]

Too many comments here already, but feel that I must voice my opinion too, and say that firefox should not be installed by default if it requires an EULA. Epiphany or Iceweasel can be used instead. Place firefox in multiverse or whatever.

[Vadim Peretokin (vperetokin)]

I agree, except that Epiphany doesn't have AdBlock Plus, which is a very
useful feature...

[verb3k (verb3k)]

I agree with StaffanBjörnesjö. Although FF is a compelling browser with a cute Fox branding, I think we can use some really free software and move FF to multiverse (from which users will be able to download it and agree to the EULA if they want.) Debian already has the FF-based IceWeasel and they're happy with it.

[Remco (remco47)]

Vadim, then you can personally choose to use Firefox/abrowser/Iceweasel. I reckon not many people use an ad blocker, otherwise it would be a good point.

[Earl Malmrose (earl)]

As the owner of a Linux hardware company I will offer my position:

EULAs are extremely offensive in a base install. I strongly recommend removing Firefox from Main and using a rebranded browser by default. If the EULA is not removed from Ubuntu, we will remove it ourselves (by removing Firefox as part of our installation procedures). We will not throw EULAs in our customers faces.

[Michael S. (jellicle)]

The Mozilla people want to be stupid and shoot themselves in the foot. That's their choice. Ubuntu need not be stupid along with them. I see the argument above that the Ubuntu experience is less good without the Firefox name. I counter that it damages the Ubuntu experience significantly to have EULAs shown to users for ANY reason. That's the WHOLE, ENTIRE difference, from a user's experience, between Windows and Linux: when using one of them, you're always clicking "I Agree" on pages of ALL CAPS text in tiny print, and when using the other one, you don't have to do that. If Ubuntu is going to the EULA model, what exactly is the advantage?

"Okay Timmy, this is Ubuntu, it's free. It's not all restricted like Windows."

"What's that? A license agreement? Looks just like Windows."

"Well, that's not really as restrictive as the Windows ones, if you read all the pages of tiny print carefully, you'll see this one isn't as bad as..."

"Looks the same to me."

Firefox needs to head off to the repositories entitled non-free, restricted, and crappy. EULAs do severe damage to the Ubuntu brand, the Linux brand, and the FOSS brand.

[Giovanni Masucci (gio-grifis)]

I'd say go with Epiphany. Is very integrated with gnome (actually it's PART of gnome). It's also a lot lighter than firefox, wich is a big plus for netbook user. It can also be costumized to have a very similar user interface.
Eula in default installation is just unacceptable. What if totem, nautilus, konqueror, kpdf, network-manager, amarok, banshee all use an Eula? It's pure madness, especially on a livecd.

[Sebastian Bengtsson (5ebastian)]

A note on animal brands: If you are trying to make a case for a Hardy Heron or Jaunty Jackalope it's not so good if people notice there's an Icy cold Weasel hidden inside. A familiar hot fox to hold your hand would be really nice and comfy, but just any no-name browser is better than some weasel. (...while we are waiting for an unobtrusive window to your favourite webpage-object.)

[Michele Costantino Soccio (michelinux)]

On Windows, Firefox will show the EULA to the user during installation
and at the first run. Other softwares who provide deb package for Ubuntu
will also show an EULA when you install the deb, not the first time you
start the program.

Presenting the EULA to the user during the installation could also make
the user "Wow! They also have Firefox!". Ok, not all the user, maybe
some people new to Linux.

[TAC one (tacone)]

On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 9:00 PM, Michele Costantino Soccio
<email address hidden> wrote:
> On Windows, Firefox will show the EULA to the user during installation
> and at the first run. Other softwares who provide deb package for Ubuntu
> will also show an EULA when you install the deb, not the first time you
> start the program.

The more interactive you make the ubuntu installation process, the
more it will suck.

[Sitsofe Wheeler (sitsofe)]

Hmm I was initially gong to skip over this due to the inflammatory all caps title but it seems there is a real point within.

Sigh. This is shame as I came across just this issue when installing openSUSE on a lab of machines. At the time I noticed that Ubuntu did not have this EULA and thought it curious that a distro would willingly put this behavior in. It seems to turn users off - they wonder why the provided software is asking unintelligible questions and whether the system was properly set up.

I would like to say that nothing shows up a system as lacking in cohesion by asking a user questions like these before the software is installed (neither IE on Windows nor Safari on OSX act in this fashion). Sadly this is not a precedent - on OSX I believe whenever iTunes is freshly installed it will put an EULA up before it can be first used.

However if it is at all possible let administrators accept these EULAs at install time (but skip upgrades) and spare the users. There is already software that does this (frustrating though it is) at install time but it is far more professional in big mass roll outs. Perhaps a similar alternative would be to check for an administrator created /etc/firefox/accept_firefox_eula_forever . . Can anyone say if these suggestions are even plausible?

[GeorgeB (solar.george-deactivatedaccount)]

> On Windows, Firefox will show the EULA to the user during installation
> and at the first run. Other softwares who provide deb package for Ubuntu
> will also show an EULA when you install the deb, not the first time you
> start the program.

How would you make this work on an automated install? the live CD?

Also I imagine how annoying it would be to leave your install while its install software and to come back and find that it's hung because you haven't clicked the "I agree" button.

[Loïc Martin (loic-martin3)]

Wouldn't it be possible to put the EULA as a web page, the one that shows where the user starts Firefox for the first time on its new Ubuntu install, replacing the traditional Ubuntu welcome page for just this one time, then switch back to Ubuntu's on the second and successive launches?

Since the EULA doesn't need any agreement, would it be possible to discuss with Mozilla this kind of compromise?

[Ralf Nieuwenhuijsen (ralf-nieuwenhuijsen)]

http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/13194/

[jotronic (jotronic)]

I won't mind using iceweasel since it is Firefox just without the trademark, isn't it? I just can't live without two plugins, wich are NOSCRIPT and ADBLOCK plus, so no other Browser is posible for me.

[Casey J Peter (caseyjp1)]

As one of the "users" (I submit bug reports when I find em', but for the
most part I'm a "USER",) I don't give a damn if there is a EULA or not. I
DO give a damn if firefox is included by default or not. It was a big
enough deal to me that when debian foisted off "iceweasel" I quit using that
distribution entirely. FOSS is great, but when it gets "religious", it gets
rediculous.

We users prefer firefox for its add-ons/tabbed browsing and, oh yeah, did I
mention, add-ons? If mozilla's EULA is a nag reminder about their
trademarked name, it is their name, right? Its one single extra click to
either yay/nay, right?

Personally, as one of the users, I think this stuff is much ado about
nothing. Now if that EULA was a change to indicate that the "fox" is no
longer open source/free/etc., then I'd see the complaint.

I can think of about a billion things I'd rather the makers/shakers of the
distro should be focusing on over this, not the least of which is the SABDFL
edict about passing Apple in the "coolness" department.

Of course I'm one of those people who actually uses Nvidia's binary drivers
as well. ;)

Open discourse is always good, but this is this loyal ubuntu user's 2
cents. (And by loyal, I mean since warty.)

[Dennis Prochko (wolfsoft)]

The main problem is the most of you think that most ununtu users are newbie dumbasses. They "will be disappointed when no "Fox under the globe" will be on the desktop", huh! Will all these users be disapponted reading bla-bla-bla lawyers shit? Will all these users understand what they are signed by click on the "I agree" checkbox? If the EULA will be displayed only when installing firefox first time to person who installing it, are another users of the system automatically agreed with EULA? What about non-Mozilla patches, are they used in the ubuntu system?

Users are not dumbasses. They want stable, quick and web-standards compiant web-browser, not a brand, but *a browser*. It can be any of browsers exist - not just firefox, so:

1. Firefox should be transferred into non-free repository, to provide an option for the brand-ofilies.
2. Debian's Iceweasel should be transferred into the main repository as the replacement for the firefox browser. You can continue rebranding for newbies, naming it "The Web Browser" (as Totem player simply named as "The Video Player"), Gnome HIG recommends this, however.
3. The alternative for the Gecko-based browsers should be provided - because the engine is still under Mozilla's control (and we don't predict what they are invited in future), and it is not met to the *quick browser* criteria. New Gnome will be with Epiphany/Webkit browser by default. Good candidate to the default web browser in the Ubuntu.

This story reminds me XFree/XOrg license wars. And where now is XFree and where now is XOrg? ;)

[Tom Arnold (g0tt)]

Creating a buzz around the Chrome EULA helped .. maybe it works here too:

http://digg.com/linux_unix/Mozilla_wants_Linux_users_to_accept_EULA_at_Firefox_startup

Stuff like this is very detrimental to Mozillas standing in the OS community. They should fear that once Webkit browser get addons people won't have much loyality left and just switch.

[Thomas Prochaska (zerx-prochas)]

hi!

i really love firefox as a browser, but this is in my opinion not acceptable. you can have this eula in a text file if you want but not as a popup. this devaluates one of the good things from free software. they don't tease you with unnecessary corporate stuff.

i recommend iceweasel.

regards
thomas prochaska

[goto (gotolaunchpad)]

Integrating the Firefox EULA into the Ubuntu installation is a no-go. If possible make the EULA appear on the first start in a special tab.

EULAs are stupid anyway, if I accept the EULA (even read it) and a friend asks me to use my computer then he uses Firefox without having read the EULA. There is just no identification and so on...

What about taking Iceweasel (now IceCat or something like this) and replace Firefox with it, but call IceCat "(Ubuntu) Web Browser", as totem is called "Video-Player" already and File Roller appears at "Archivmanager" here in german.
The enduser starts Ubuntu, starts the web browser and recognises that it "is" Firefox.

[GFORGX (gforgx-gmail)]

XFree86's old story repeats.

I think every piece of software, software package that is non-free should be replaced with free one. So, IMHO, Canonical should support Debian with its Iceweasel, not Evil Forces Of Mozilla Corp. with their F******®.

// "He said, my water's good 'n my water's free, So, Pond Erosa, you gonna THANK me..." © OpenBSD 3.6 Song, "Pond Erosa Puff".

[Michele Costantino Soccio (michelinux)]

Making it appear on the first page doesn't mean the user accepts it. It
is like asking to pay copyright every time someone is mumbling a song in
the street and you are close enough to hear.

Il giorno dom, 14/09/2008 alle 18.27 +0000, TAC one ha scritto:

> As Sebastian Bengtsson, putting the eula in the first page would be
> nice.
>
> Would be even nicer (but thats depends on Mozilla lawyers, and I don't
> think it will be feasible) creating a page like the creative commons
> one:
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
> Such page would link or (better) embedd the full eula in a textarea.
>
> Since i don't think it will be feasible (but maybe worth a try ?) i'd
> go with the Ubuntu Web Browser idea.
>

[TAC one (tacone)]

I created the following ideas to be voted on brainstorm, hoping to
shift the discussion there, to not clutter launchpad and to hear what
users think.

Keep firefox
http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/13200/

Adopt Iceweasel
http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/13201/

Adopt Epiphany
http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/13202/

[Bryan Donlan (bdonlan)]

Really, the answer is simple. If firefox cannot be modified to remove the EULA and then distributed legally by Ubuntu, it is simply not free software. Thus it should be in restricted or multiverse, and subject to the same reduced support. In particular, the default installation should not install it.

The fact that the restrictions come from trademark and not copyright law is irrelevant - the result is that modifications are not legal without first removing the non-free (ie, trademarked) content. It is thus an equivalent situation to having a mix of GPL'd code and proprietary code mixed together, made legal in that exact (unmodified) form by the blessing of the GPL code's copyright holder. While this may be legal to redistribute according to some separate license, this doesn't make it even remotely free software.

[K. Lange (k-lange)]

For the love of Torvalds, it's a freaking license agreement to respect the Firefox name, it's not a big deal. It's one-time thing.

Bit OT: Removing "Firefox" from the name will also remove "Firefox" from the user agent string, which is one of the reasons why Iceweasel (etc.) operate a bit different - sites see them as being something other than Firefox.

[Remco (remco47)]

I highly doubt that using the Firefox user agent string would fall under trademark law. It's a simple string that needs to be there in order to function correctly (since some sites only allow certain browsers, which usually means IE and Fx). Trademark restrictions only cover what is actually visible.

I am not a lawyer, though.

[6205 (6205-reactivated-deactivatedaccount)]

mmm... maybe is time for epiphany

[rawsausage (rawsausage)]

Couple persons earlier pointed out that Epiphany does not have Adblock Plus and that's primary reason why it is not an option for them. I would like to set that straight. Epiphany has ad blocking feature, which even is able to download blocklists. It's a bit dumb, but I have found out that it works rather well. Also, it's tight c/c++, and performs really well.

Some sites do check for user agent strings, but generally they are more interested of the family than the accurate version. Generally, although admittably not perhaps always, there should be no problems caused by the user agent string being slightly different.

If Ubuntu project actually did move Firefox to multiverse, it would be pretty big hit to Mozilla. Ubuntu is by far the largest distribution, and that move would be visible in the browser statistics after a while (after users would have slowly migrated to newer Ubuntu releases). I would think that it would be possible at least to discuss further removing the EULA with Mozilla. Having it is not acceptable.

[Marco Rodrigues (gothicx)]

I vote for iceweasel / icedove / iceape :-)

[cruiseoveride (cruiseoveride)]

I think ubuntu should capitalise on a new marketing scheme. Like what apple did with the letter "i", let ubuntu do with the letter "u"

uSurf - Ubuntu Browser, powered by mozilla
uWrite - Open office write
uExcel - Open Office calc
uChat - Gaim instant messenger
uListen - Music player
uWatch - Movie player

if any part of this idea gets used, i need to get paid for it. the said amount will be disclosed in private.

thanks.

[Oliver Gerlich (ogerlich)]

Two points I'm not clear about now:
- is it ok if a non-Firefox browser (or rebranded Firefox) uses the Firefox User-Agent string (without accepting any EULA etc)?
- is there any incompatibility between Firefox and Iceweasel? Would Iceweasel users be able to use Firefox extensions and all that stuff?

Can anyone give definite answers for that?

[Andrius Štikonas (stikonas)]

1) Yes
2) No

[Andrius Štikonas (stikonas)]

@ Oliver
3) Yes.

[Markus Barthel (markusbarthel)]

After I read this, I think it's finaly time for using a firefox browser without these increasing obligations on the part of mozilla.

Please let us take iceweasel. It makes no technical problems.

[Vadim Peretokin (vperetokin)]

While I have nothing against the Iceweasel project, brand names do matter -
and "Iceweasel" isn't something that people know at all. The fact that it
really is Firefox just renamed will make people go "huh?", "wtf?" or be
confused.

[Markus Thielmann (thielmann)]

Fortunately I don't have to make the decision, but some of you will. In fact, all options (other than Mozilla removing that restriction) have flaws. So, who will decide and when will a decision be made?

Personally, I don't like the idea of presenting a EULA to any of our users in the default installation.
So why don't we switch to "abrowser" (1) in the default install and add "firefox-3.0-branding" to ubuntu-restricted-extras?

(1) BTW: I'd love to see it called "Web Browser" instead of "A Web Browser" in the Gnome menu and I think the "Mozilla Firefox" text at the title bar should be changed also.

[LT-P (lt-p)]

I wonder how this EULA could be managed at the international level. Remember, there is a whole planet outside USA. Some countries don't have legal ground for applying this EULA, and it will have to be translated (and validated) into every languages for being legal.

Plainly a major pain that will never be done properly because, honestly, nobody care enough.

[J.P. (mackdieselx27)]

Another voice for Epiphany. Firefox and Thunderbird should go into multiverse.

[Mike Coleman (tutufan)]

A typical Ubuntu install has thousands if not tens of thousands of executables. What happens if a significant fraction of these start requiring an "I agree" on installation/upgrade/execution?

Personally I think it would be completely appropriate to strip the "Mozilla" and "Firefox" labels off of the code, maybe giving an explanation in the "about" box of the resulting browser informing the user that the owner of the trademarks in question will not allow their use under reasonable terms.

[h4x0r (jason-hatton)]

Yet another voice for Epiphany. Firefox and Thunderbird should go into multiverse.

Maybe Mozilla will change their mind about licensing when all Ubuntu users drop firefox at once.

[Esben Stien (b0ef)]

Drop firefox..

[Mårten Woxberg (maxmc)]

My first thought was: Ok, so change to Epiphany-Webkit then.
It's much lighter and actually works during disk-load.

My second thought was.. who cares?
Everyone I know (EVERYONE), just clicks past these EULA's all the time no one ever bothers reading them.
I'm ok with the EULA showing up ONCE, but if it starts doing the iTunes thing of showing up after every upgrade I'm going to get pissed.

I just clicked past the eula of Google's Chrome browser and so far I've only seen it that one time. I clicked through Firefox 3.0 EULA on Windows too, but I find myself using Chrome for 95% of my surfing anyway.

Sure Firefox with ad-block is good, but a fast and lean browser is more important.
I vote for Epiphany (gecko or webkit) as the default browser.

[Pablo De Nápoli (pdenapo)]

I vote for Epiphany. It integrates better with the gnome environmet.

I don't understand why Mozilla insist in EULA, brands, etc. All they can get from this is loosing market share to other free browsers.

[bky (bkystarfleet)]

Move Firefox to Multiverse/Restricted and replace it with Iceweasel. We cannot allow this type of thing to go into the main repos: if we bend for Firefox, what else will we have to bend to?

[goto (gotolaunchpad)]

The whole thing is quite amusing from one point of view. - Firefox was originally meant as a bloat-free and lean alternative to the Mozilla suite. And now it includes an EULA nagscreen; despite that being virtually void outside of the United States. And yes, that makes Firefox nagware in my book.

I vote for dropping the Firefox brand. It is NON-ESSENTIAL to Ubuntu.
The user experience argument is sadly true, but it cannot be the deciding factor here.

On a broader note, we the community, should coordinate with other distributions like RedHat, OpenSUSE, Madriva and Gentoo etc. to agree on a common alternative Firefox name (Debian figured that out earlier).
We, the technical elite, helped spread the Firefox brand. We can take it down. Especially now that the Mozilla foundation makes such insensible demands.

-- mario

PS: The web browser is a crucial part of Ubuntu now. There actually should be a fallback in the default Ubuntu installation. It's not as if Firefox (or any other browser for that matter) was indestructible. If your user profile ever got mangled, you are cut off from the Ubuntu support forums and help from Google.

[Ricky Brent (rickybrent)]

Ok, does this seem familiar to anyone else? Mozilla is waiting until a distro is just about to ship then slapping them with demands they either have to give into quick or do a lot of work to get around. First they did it with Debian, and now with Ubuntu. Why are the distros putting up with this crap? Maybe once I could see as honestly "just realizing it was missing", but come on.

[Eero (eero+launchpad)]

Outside USA you can wipe your ass with EULAs so they will just annoy users. Drop Firefox and use Iceweasel or some other free browser.

[Thiago Teixeira (tvst)]

Here are the options as I see them:

1) If you don't have a problem with EULAs in general:
1.1) Show the EULA as a popup window (what is currently implemented)
1.2) Show the EULA during the Ubuntu installation
1.3) Show a better popup explaining the EULA in plain English, and with a button to install an alternative browser
1.4) Show the EULA in a tab or in the default home page.

2) If you do oppose EULAs the only option is to have another browser installed by default. This browser could be:
2.1) Epiphany
2.2) IceWeasel
2.3) abrowser
2.4) An Ubuntu-branded version of Firefox

Option 1.1 is the worst possible choice in my opinion.

To reach a consensus, Canonical and the Ubuntu community have to decide whether or not EULAs are acceptable. If they are, then Options 1.2 or 1.4 present a minimal amount of annoyance to the end user.

If EULAs are deemed unacceptable, then I vote for Option 2.4: the Ubuntu brand is a strong one and the names "IceWeasel" or "abrowser" don't particularly inspire much confidence. And the default home page can contain a panel explaining that the Ubuntu browser is a rebranded Firefox.

[Tom Arnold (g0tt)]

I just thought about it a little more and while loosing a good brand like firefox might be bad
_not_ presenting each new user with allcaps legalese might actually be a good selling point.

Coordinating with other distros on this issue would be good. Just build the definite Linux browser brand ( powered by Mozilla ).
That will be a win-win for everybody in the long run.

Just make sure the browser gets a good name and it is clear to everyone that it is just a self build Firefox without the annoyance/nag.

Mozilla is the new XFree86.

Firefox is not free anymore.

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

[josh04 (josh04)]

It does seem a lot like Mozilla trying to assert their authority over all things Firefox, which is definitely not a good path to be going down. As the EULA is assumed accepted anyway, can it not be hidden out of the way, perhaps on the "Help" menu?

[John B. (jbuncher)]

I admit, I *love* having the branded firefox in ubuntu, but if it comes at the cost of an EULA, I'd much prefer iceweasel or an equivalent.

EULA's should not be in programs distributed in main. I know people get used to them in windows world, but when I installed skype from medibuntu and an eula popped up, I was instantly disgusted. Even a one-time EULA significantly degrades the user experience in my opinion.

Secondly, if we allow firefox to have this, how many other apps will there be that also need them? I would assume Thunderbird and Sunbird at least. What about openoffice.org? This could quickly avalanche into something where on the first boot and first use of many programs people just decide to uninstall ubuntu, rather than deal with all of that nonsense.

I understand that Mozilla needs to protect the Firefox brand (though I don't understand how EULA's accomplish that), but Ubuntu needs to protect Ubuntu's brand, and EULA-encumbered programs in the main repository hurt Ubuntu's brand. We can still have firefox in multiverse (or wherever is appropriate), and have it remove iceweasel upon installation for those that don't mind. I think it's important to at least keep a firefox-clone (or whatever iceweasel and related projects are called) as the default in ubuntu rather than epiphany as it helps users making the switch be more comfortable with a major use scenario.

In summary: I'd hate to see firefox not be the default, but an EULA is unacceptable.

[Slogger (slogger)]

I'm of the camp that asks if Mozilla can force ubuntu do display and EULA, then pretty soon every too big for its britches "free" software project is going to try and make you click past a stupid EULA screen when you launch. There goes one of the prime reasons to use linux/ubuntu over other non-free OSes: things no longer just work without hassle.

I say anything that requires you to click an extra screen shouldn't be installed by default.

[Jon (narfman0)]

Can the eula not be added to the start page after installing mozilla and running it first, instead of a popup?

[Remco (remco47)]

By the way, even if Mozilla decides to drop the EULA in fear of losing Ubuntu, we should still switch to another browser. Mozilla can seriously harm Ubuntu by demanding all kinds of things way too late in Ubuntu's development cycle.

Ubuntu must not be in a position to be blackmailed like this. Drop Mozilla's trademarked artwork and we're in the clear again.

[evildonkey (theevildonkey)]

Will Mozilla come to my house and click it for me? Because I'm not.

[Paul Sladen (sladen)]

...and just out-of-interest, does 'abrowser' also invoke that direct revenue share agreement with Google. ;-)

Might as well have the Google referral monies spent on something more constructive than EULA pushing.

[GeorgeB (solar.george-deactivatedaccount)]

> In summary: I'd hate to see firefox not be the default, but an EULA
> is unacceptable.
>
Could I just remind people that there is no practical difference
between a branded and unbranded "firefox". All that happens is that it
has different icons and a different name.

If you went through all the code in <insert program here> and changed
it's name it would still work the same and look almost the same.

solar.george

[Craig (candrews-integralblue)]

If Ubuntu is about community and Freedom, it seems a bit ironic to me that a user's first experience with the newly installed/upgraded Intrepid Ibex will be a EULA that is long, confusing, and screams proprietary software.
+1 for moving Firefox to Universe. I don't care what is used to replace Firefox, but it shouldn't have a EULA.

I'd rather not have functionality than have encumbered functionality.

[TJ (tj)]

Correcting Daniël H's link to the EULA:

http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/legal/eula/firefox3-en.html

[Benjamin Drung (bdrung)]

Move Firefox to restricted or multiverse and adopt Iceweasel as default web browser. You can call Iceweasel "Iceweasel Web Browser" or plain "Web Browser" in the GNOME menu and the window title.

Here some reasons for my opinion:
* An EULA degrades the usability, especially in the live CD.
* In some countries the EULAs have no legal effects. So clicking yes is only wasted time.
* Using Iceweasel would keep the difference to Debian small, e.g. if you package an Iceweasel extension.

[kevmitch (kevmitch)]

I'm a Debian user and have been using Iceweasel for the past year and a half. I thought I'd put my two cents in and say that Iceweasel is no different than Firefox as far as I an tell with the exception of the name, icons and UA string. These are mostly superfluous differences and I would even stop short of calling Iceweasel a proper "fork" since it follows the Firefox upstream so closely. The differences are essentially no greater than other packages that are modified from upstream by the distribution.

I would strongly recommend switching to Iceweasel to avoid this EULA nonsense. It is not in keeping with the spirit of free software and Mozilla needs to hear that message loud and clear. I can think of no better distro to hammer this message home than the ubiquitous Ubuntu.

[begemot (oival)]

While i'm perfectly respect Mozilla corp. and their work, i think it's absolutely unacceptable to force us agreeing EULA.

What if tomorrow (or toward 9.04) ten-or-twenty more projects will register their trademarks and will force us to accept their EULA too, starting from Canonical and Ubuntu itself?!
And what if Mozilla will not stop on just "agreeing EULA", if they will reach their point today?

Otherwise, how justify for ubuntu-developers will be - to support trademarks-free browser? But ubuntu is a "lucky girl" because of Debian (and it's not in first time). Debian already have trademarks-free browser in it's repository and i can' see any reason to not take it and improve it together!

BUT! If Mozilla truly have so many reasons to suggest users to read their EULA, i think most compromise way - is to put the link to it on Ubuntu's Firefox start page.

Thank You for Your attention.

[Chris H. (ahmshaegar)]

Hello, just wanted to say my piece.

Practically, to the end user, this EULA doesn't mean much. However, we must take a stand on principle.

Practically, to Ubuntu, this EULA is a hassle. The timing of this demand by Mozilla is less than optimal.

I would advocate a rebranded version of Firefox. I am leaning toward "Ubuntu Web Browser" or "Internet" rather than "Iceweasel" because I think Firefox was an odd enough name. We shouldn't gamble on Iceweasel.

Finally, I do not like the XFree86-Mozilla comparison. How many millions of Firefox users are on Windows? If a Windows using friend asks about alternative browsers, will you point to Firefox? Or some other browser? So, I don't think Mozilla is going anywhere in the grand scheme of things. Their relationship with the rest of the Free Software movement might go sour for now, but they still have the Windows market (and a small, small portion of the Mac OS X market.)

[SilverWave (silverwave)]

Constructive Comment
----------------------------------

1. Ubuntu needs to use abrowser as the default browser (call it Web Browser).
Important: create a nice warm Icon for it in Ubuntu colours.

2. Add Firefox as an optional package.

Everyone is happy :)

No intrusive EULA.
No inappropriate trade mark use of the Firefox brand.
Any new user who would be impressed by Firefox being an option can install it.

Put in a short explanation that "Web Browser" is based on Firefox but as Ubuntu alters the code slightly that it cannot use the firefox name or logo which is trademarked.

-------------------
Note:
I have been a Firefox evangelical for years and love the browser and the ideas behind it.
I am worried about the more "Corporate" stance of Mozilla lately - I hope they don't forget who they are.

[Shane Par-Due (shanepardue)]

iceweasel +1

[jetole (jetole)]

Ok, perhaps this has been mentioned since I only read the first 90% of this post but here is an idea. If I understand the scenario correctly, this EULA is being mandated because we are changing Firefox and the way it operates?

apt-get -y install ubufox

Problem solved! no?
Additionally I really don't need to hear one more vote ice weasel, vote epiphany comment. This forum took too long to read with enough redundancy that many posts were as relevant as the Firefox EULA. However, since I am posting a credible suggestion, the EULA as a default when you install is a bug and huge one. Everyone who wants to say I always just click through em etc etc should reconsider what the ideals of Linux are and why it is popular. If Ubuntu wants to ship with a EULA in their next version then I will probably accept but I will lose a lot of respect for it and may consider it time for a new distribution. If I am willing to weigh it then I know way too many won't need the time to weigh it.

It doesn't matter how accustomed YOU are to clicking through a EULA because YOU are not the only user of Ubuntu and YOU do not have to answer to a corporate legal team. Do you?

[chris_c (c-camacho)]

Sounds like they are getting to big for their boots throwing around *demands*

It used to be the case Debian was quite out of date, no longer and at least they seem to have a better way of dealing with this sort of thing...

Already the brainstorm votes are showing a very good support for iceweasel over firefox this could be one of those "silly" little issues that slows the rise of Ubuntu in favour of other distros...

[Andrew Fuchs (fuchs.andy)]

 unsubscribe

[jetole (jetole)]

Yes but that silly little issue is important as Ubuntu is backed by a corporate entity but at the same time it needs to do the right thing and a EULA by default in a Linux installation is going to hurt Firefox but probably not as badly as Ubuntu since that will drive away more people then fixing the EULA issue.

If we are only being asked to use a EULA because we are changing Firefox then don't change Firefox and everyone stays as happy as can be.

[RichardNeill (ubuntu-richardneill)]

EULAs don't belong in Linux. Not only are they a nuisance (imagine if everyone starts that silly game), but they harm the principle of Free Software - it's very hard to promote Linux as opposed to, say, MS, by saying "Linux doesn't ask you to do anything nasty with EULAs - but look at all the horrid stuff you consent to when you install $closed-app" - only to find the rug pulled from under one's argument by Ubuntu doing something daft. Remember what happened to XFree86 - the kindest thing we can do to Firefox is to refuse to go along with it.

[Andrew Fuchs (fuchs.andy)]

 unsubscribe

[Remco (remco47)]

What does "unsubscribe" mean?

[Robert Okadar (aranea-network)]

[quote]
Freedom

The state of being free; exemption from the power and control of another; liberty; independence.
 -1913 Webster-
[/quote]

Hello, I'm new to Ubuntu, new to FOSS, GNU ... but Precisely the idea of freedom attracted me to this wonderful community and now is Ubuntu my primary OS (and for my company). All I have to say about this EULA thing is: If you tell me "you will be free if you do this", then I'm not free!

Exactly everything what freedom means has contributed to what Firefox is today. Perhaps we should remind them to it. People make, people take. And nobody uses Firefox because of its name, its because of those fine features.

uBrowser, aBrowser, cBrowser ... do we really need another free browser? There are already a couple free browsers available. Improve them, do not reinvent the wheel. As long as the right features are there, people will quickly accept what ever you give them. Of course, the best way if you ask me - propose to Mozilla that Ubuntu will contain original Firefox, but without EULA. Otherwise, Ubuntu is forced to find another default browser, simple as that.

Just for info - I use Firefox since v0.7 and I like it very much. But I'm ready to switch to another browser because of this, even to another Linux distribution if it goes out of control.

@cruiseoveride
your idea of having u-whatever like mac is #$%$&. Ubuntu is not about some stupid corporate identity. Ubuntu did not accomplish all that success while copying: It is successful because it is better than others, and it is better because it is different. And we have Mark to lead us, of course :)

[Dara Adib (daradib)]

@remco
Launchpad has a bug tracker email interface that allows you to do just about as much as you can do with the web interface.

Unsubscribing can be done via the command "unsubscribe [name|email]", as long as the email is be GPG-signed. I suspect the command was used incorrectly or not signed, or perhaps was done successfully, but still listed as a comment.

[Kasimir Gabert (kasimir-g)]

I do not understand why the extensive conversations with Mozilla did not include the developers and the users. It seems that such underhanded tactics should not be used in an open source project. Due to this and the blatant stupidity of a EULA (which could be explained through transparent extensive conversations), I place my vote on moving towards Iceweasel.

[pj (pj-groklaw)]

Could Mozilla people explain how a use restriction in a EULA does not conflict with
the GPL v2?

Is it their position that the binary is not being released under the GPL, only the
source code version? How could that work?

The EULA says if you don't wish to agree to the EULA, you should not install or *use*
the software. But the GPL says nothing about use, only distribution. You are free
to use GPL software, period. And I don't think, from what I know, that you can
attach restrictions on use to GPLv2 software. So, that's the part I'm puzzling over.
There may be an explanation that I can't see yet, but I can't see how this isn't
violating the part of the GPL that says you can't attach any further restrictions.

(GPLv3 has some options that v2
doesn't have. But I read the Mozilla Foundation License Policy page at
http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/license-policy.html
and what I see is v2, not v3.)

Suggestion: Has Mozilla thought to speak to Software Freedom Law Center or FSF
about this EULA? They are concerned about their trademark, and that is natural enough,
to me, anyway, and there may be a way to address Mozilla's concerns without stepping
on the GPL, but so far, I don't think they've found it. Lawyers can usually find ways to
do what you want to do, and the community certainly wants Mozilla to avoid legal
troubles, but I'm wondering if there isn't a better way than this? Maybe their legal
counsel isn't as familiar with the GPL as SFLC, for example, and SFLC could show
a less offensive way to go about things.

I can't put these two paragraphs from the End User License together:

"A source code version of certain Firefox Browser functionality that you may use, modify and distribute is available to you free-of-charge from www.mozilla.org under the Mozilla Public License and other open source software licenses.

"The accompanying executable code version of Mozilla Firefox and related documentation (the "Product") is made available to you under the terms of this Mozilla Firefox End-User Software License Agreement (the "Agreement"). By clicking the "Accept" button, or by installing or using the Mozilla Firefox Browser, you are consenting to be bound by the Agreement. If you do not agree to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, do not click the "Accept" button, and do not install or use any part of the Mozilla Firefox Browser."

Is the key "certain Firefox Browser functionality"? What is the purpose of making the distinction? If that phrase means that some functionality is proprietary, and some isn't, and only the parts that are not proprietary are available as source, then is Mozilla saying that their finished product is no longer free software, that it's a mix of free and proprietary? Or what is the meaning? If so, I would think that would be something to make clearer. And if the source code version is available to be used, is it available to be used and still be called Firefox? Would it work standalone? If so, could the proprietary bits be
separated out and let people choose or not, subject to the EULA?

I'm thinking it would smooth the waters quite a bit if Mozilla would explain things a bit better.

[Guillermo Espertino (Gez) (gespertino-gmail)]

I think that Ubuntu already respects their trademark, but If what they want is more a notice than technically an EULA (afaik you can still use the browser even if you don't accept it), why not adding those terms in the page displayed as default?
Mozilla trademark and legal people could help to design that "first run" webpage and add the neccesary license terms according their needs.
But I strongly agree that an EULA popup window would be the worst choice. It would harm the "free software user experience", taking us users to the inconvenient situation of accepting licenses in order to use FREE software on a free operating system (something that sounds pretty contradictory).
It's also important to state that this decision also harms Mozilla's public image. They are one of the most influential software names among the top open source creators and the posible scenario of being excluded of the leading linux distro won't be helping them too much.

[claudio (private-claudio)]

My .02 Euro:

Regarding the discussion Iceweasel or some other name: If you replace firefox by a rebranded one, use Iceweasel and don't create a new one. No need to fragment the rebranded-firefox-space.

Regarding adblock and noscript: Unless you don't plan have those plugins preinstalled on the livecd or a default install, I see no reason why you can't switch to epiphany instead of iceweasel. A user who knows about those plugins and wants them and is able to install them is also able to install iceceasel if the default browser is epiphany. So I have no preference regarding epiphany vs iceweasel as default browser.

Regarding the EULA: Unless Mozilla is not willing to accept a simple copyright notice in /usr/share/doc firefox should be moved away from main to the same place where things like flashplugin-nonfree etc. reside.

[evildonkey (theevildonkey)]

I retract my earlier comment about the poo.
k sry.

btw. has anyone noticed the bug report for abrowser?
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/intrepid/+source/firefox-3.0/+bug/269795

[Eugene Burmistrov (brmstrv)]

Debian already have make decision about using firefox. Include Ice Wiesel (Firefox w/o label of Fire Fox), as default browser for Ubuntu Linux, and Firefox put to repository for fanatics of Firefox.

[Scott Thatcher (thatcher)]

Can "add Firefox branding" be treated in a similar manner to "install proprietary nvidia drivers"? Ubuntu provides a fairly easy and understandable way to do the second of these.

[Usama Akkad (damascene)]

I'm with Icewiesel

[Michael Gilbert (michael-s-gilbert)]

Just use debian's iceweasel by default and call it "Web Browser" everywhere (even in the about page, and maybe even call the package web-browser). Then make the unmodified EULA'd "firefox" package installable from the ubuntu restricted repository.

This is a compromise that should appease everyone (except maybe mozilla -- but its their own fault for attempting to exert excessive control over the free software community).

[J.P. (mackdieselx27)]

I don't understand those who don't see EULAs as a big deal. EULAs are what you would expect from proprietary software running on proprietary operating systems, not free software. The enforceability of them are still legally gray in some places and outright rubbish in others. Besides, who in here really sits down to read these things? But that doesn't stop the vendors from mustering up their lawyers.

The problem with EULAs is that the goal posts can be moved at any time, leaving you at the mercy of the vendors. A prominent example of this is iTunes and its music store. Apple even have language to the effect of you accepting whatever they decide to do down the road because you clicked "Agree" after reading a previous EULA. This doesn't take into account whatever DRM or other lock-in mechanisms they have in place, but we all already know this.

Now we have Mozilla acting like a proprietary vendor and moving the goal posts for whatever they see fit for themselves. Mozilla first went to Debian and told them that they better use the official artwork or else. Canonical obliged. However, that wasn't enough for them and now they want a EULA included. A few months from now it could be something else with another distro. Where does it stop? End users don't need EULAs forced down their throats under the guise of protecting trademarks; if that were the case every time we upgraded our kernels we would have a new Linux EULA pop up in our faces after we reboot.

If Canonical decides to ship FF with the EULA intact, it could very well start our way down a slippery slope. It's one thing to see EULAs in Linux because we knowingly run proprietary apps from multiverse; it's another to have supposedly 'free' software shipping with them.

[jackb_guppy (jackb-guppy)]

Dump firefox. The elua is a bad idea. Switch to new free-of-restrictions version of a browser.

Do not force via automatic updates or via an install hidden licenses. Break the current upgrade path.

Copyright and Trademark sit just fine in the HELP -> ABOUT where they are today.

Many years ago, Smoothwall started to add nag panels. The GPL is "fine" with this but not users. Instead a fork of the code occurred, and IPCOP was born.

It is time to wave bye-bye.

[Jeroen Hoek (mail-jeroenhoek)]

Looking at the Mozilla Firefox EULA, there are a lot of points I cannot completely understand as a user without any legal background. One point in particular strikes me as odd and possible very offensive.

> 6. EXPORT CONTROLS. This license is subject to all applicable export restrictions.
> You must comply with all export and import laws and restrictions and regulations
> of any United States or foreign agency or authority relating to the Product and its use.

Does this mean I am suddenly subject to US laws? I've never even been near the country. Regardless of the answer to this, a common user will be confused and intimidated by this legalese.

As a user:
* I cannot agree to a EULA when I do not understand its contents.
* I should not be expected to read through pages of legal text.
* I should never be asked to agree to (in most jurisdictions legally void) legal texts by my computer in a default install.

A number of people above have stated that IceWeasel can be a fully compatible replacement for Firefox. I would, however, suggest looking into the user agent string issue, although I suspect that websites that depend of the "Firefox" bit in the string are extremely rare.

+1 IceWeasel
+1 Firefox should no longer reside in main

I hope Mozilla is willing to reconsider their position. Good luck to the Ubuntu and Canonical people involved in resolving this issue. I am confident common sense will prevail in the end.

[Johannes (kakemphaton)]

Thank you Jeroen Hoek for your great comment. I totally agree.

+1 IceWeasel
+1 Firefox should no longer reside in main

All the best,
Johannes

[Adam Hooper (adamh)]

Voice of pragmatism:

Ubuntu allegedly uses the Firefox brand to gain users. What feedback has been gained? In other words, how many users per year (ballparked, of course) does Ubuntu expect to lose by dropping the "Firefox" name and logo? Let's call this X.

As mentioned above, there is a huge cost in adding an EULA to free software, as it ruins users' perceptions of free software. (I, for instance, am horribly disillusioned and will be badmouthing Firefox for the foreseeable future.) Can anyone quantify that cost (in lost current and prospective users, say, or fractions of users' trust)? Let's call this Y.

If X is greater than Y, there is a case for keeping the EULA. If X is less than Y, we should rebrand Firefox (which, I assume, is a zero-cost operation). If X is equal to Y (or close), then I, for one, advocate rebranding Firefox simply to maintain Ubuntu's ideals.

If we do not know X or Y and cannot guess at them, then why not hold with Ubuntu's ideals: the one concrete value we have? Rephrased for emphasis: why add an EULA, which produces a proven negative effect (as evidenced by the flurry of comments above), instead of rebranding, which has (so far) no proven negative effect?

Ubuntu has greatly disappointed me in this example of pragmatism over policy, especially because the Ubuntu community has not even been offered evidence of any pragmatism whatsoever.

Meaning no offense, Mark, I ask for the sake of argument: what evidence can you provide that including an EULA is good for Ubuntu?

[Hew (hew)]

According to http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/components :

"The restricted component is reserved for software that is very commonly used, and which is supported by the Ubuntu team even though it is not available under a completely free licence."

This sounds just like the branded firefox browser, so it seems necessary to move it to restricted.

My preference is also to use Iceweasel as the default browser for Intrepid. I don't think there would be much confusion in a switch (as long as it's labelled something like "Iceweasel Web Browser"). Debian have already successfully performed the switch, so it should be even easier for Ubuntu to do this. A EULA just isn't appropriate for the default installation of free software.

[hackel (hackel)]

I second the call for Iceweasel to be the new default browser, and for Firefox to be moved to restricted. I would love it if Mozilla changed its mind on this issue, but I can't see it happening. They always prefer to ignore the wishes of their users, such as when they randomly changed the function of the backspace key to mean "page up" instead of "go back". There was a huge outcry then, and still Mozilla refused to budge. They are self-destructive, unfortunately, fueled by legal fear. Ubuntu should learn from Mozilla's mistakes, if it wants to survive. Thankfully Debian does not have this problem of being corporatised. It will be interesting to see if Google handles this issue any better once Chrome for Linux is finished...

[Torsten Landschoff (torsten)]

If it was my decision, the answer would be clear: Rename firefox to iceweasel and be done with it. Now.

Otherwise, this stupidity will just continue. What if Firefox demands that installation should be prohibited on slow machines so that users don't get a wrong impression about performance? Abort Ubuntu installation automatically? Or change the installation system so that the browser is selected based on CPU and memory?

I hope, Ubuntu reconsiders this decision and stays independent of the legal games of Mozillla corporation. While we are at it, we should make the google money for the startup page for iceweasel go to Debian/Ubuntu respectively ;-)

[TAC one (tacone)]

> Firefox to be moved to restricted. I would love it if Mozilla changed
> its mind on this issue, but I can't see it happening. They always

Looking at this comment, chances are it did.
http://stemp.wordpress.com/2008/09/14/intrepid-firefox-et-son-cluf/#comments

[Rthaduthd Anthnhkrc (nthnuekeu-deactivatedaccount)]

We don't need this. If Mozilla goes through with this nonsense you have my vote: go for Iceweasel as Debian has done.

[Matthew Lange (matthewlange)]

As far as retaining a trademark, I believe the requirement is that it not fall into common use, IE 'Kleenex', etc. (Hence Kleenex-Brand tissues), or 'Google' (as a verb), and that the company assert dominance over the name (hence the previous scandal over not being allowed to use the name Google as a verb).

I'm pretty sure that this trademark dominance is accomplished simply by naming the applications Mozilla Firefox and Mozilla Thunderbird, and this is clearly stated in the User-Agent, the Titlebar, and the Help > About... screen.

Although I'm not against an EULA, I would like to see Ubuntu work with Mozilla to come up with a special version that doesn't include all the extraneous wording, or as suggested previously, to show a common-sense EULA, and link to the full EULA if the user wants (something like about:eula)

[Rotbart van Dainig (rotbart-van-dainig)]

It doesn't really matter, though.

The EULA is not a recognized free license, thus Firefox has to move to restricted. No questions there.

That way, it can still be in the default install - and the unbranded browser can be installed if choosing to install with the 'free software only' option.

[Mario Calabrese (mario-calabrese)]

I agree with the Debian policy.
Ubuntu should provide a completely free browser, such as Iceweasel and Epiphany. Firefox should be moved to restricted.

[Tony Yarusso (tonyyarusso)]

You know, I stayed out of this stuff the last time around, because quite frankly I didn't care that much about an icon. A EULA is different. First, I'm one of those people who tells everyone I know to always read every last word of every EULA they encounter, just in case. I regard them as something not to be trusted, even though they aren't legally enforceable in many places. Users shouldn't have to deal with that sort of thing in Ubuntu, period, and we certainly don't want it to be their first impression. Does Mozilla have the right to make this demand? Absolutely. However, we also have the right to take the alternative option and discontinue use of their brand if that demand is unacceptable for our purposes, which I think it is.

It's been nice having the familiar Firefox name around for new people switching over to Ubuntu, but it's time to stand up and rely on our own branding, not Mozilla's. If Mozilla wants to throw their legal weight around a bit, let them, but keep it out of Ubuntu's development cycles - there are better things to spend time on. I had dismissed the idea in the past as not being particularly necessary, but given that this is now our second quibble about Mozilla legal requirements, and one that no doubt sets a much more dangerous and obnoxious precedent, I am now fully in favor of going with one of the other options for Ubuntu's default web browser, and possibly moving Firefox proper to multiverse. I'm also significantly disappointed that there wasn't involvement of the broader community earlier on in this discussion.

As I see it, there are two choices that stand out going forward:

1) Go with Iceweasel. After the last bit of bickering this actually has some significant name recognition itself, would be functionally the same in terms of general interface, profile compatibility, and extensions, so a very simple technical leap that could easily still be implemented in time for Intrepid release. Additionally, this choice would reduce our overall delta with Debian, which is usually advocated as a good thing by the development team.

2) Use Epiphany-Webkit. Epiphany has always been a good browser, and lately has been making more strides into the realm of being a great one. Someone blogging about the last Ubuntu Developer Summit actually noted how many people there were using Epiphany instead of Firefox, which says something about its technical prowess, and ability to cater to power users as well as people just needing to get to a few web pages fast. Its simplicity, friendliness, and integration into the Gnome desktop certainly fits well with the overall Ubuntu project goals. The recent transition to Webkit gives it that last technical leg up to make it worthy of serious consideration even if there wasn't a particular reason to look at dropping Firefox otherwise.

Given those points, my own personal recommendation would be to implement Iceweasel for 8.10, given the short timeframe left to do so. Then, a significant discussion should be held for 9.04 (and future releases, if needed) about the relative merits of Iceweasel versus Epiphany-Webkit.

[Grant (gk-lp)]

If it came down to a vote, I'd be in favour of Epiphany as the default browser :)

I strongly agree that regardless of the way it's presented, the Firefox EULA doesn't fit with what I expect out of Ubuntu.

( If FF needed to be rebranded though, there's plenty of animal names among the Ubuntu codenames - If Jaunty wants to blur the lines between OS and web, why not call its browser FireJackalope, or even JauntyJackalope? :P )

[Tom Arnold (g0tt)]

Another thing:

Doesn't this branding and approval stuff by Mozilla Corp. bring a delay in shipping out security updates with it?

I think I heard it does... can somebody confirm that?

Another strong point in favor of "Web browser (Iceweasel)"

[William Pitcock (nenolod)]

Replacing Firefox with Iceweasel would reduce the diff to Debian, which is a good thing.

[James Clemence (jvc26)]

If it has a EULA I think it should be moved out of main and put in the same kind of locale as the sun-java packages. There is no place for a EULA in main and consequently it should be moved elsewhere. The default browser should drop to iceweasel - or, possibly more sensibly to Epiphany - given that KDE use konqueror as their default, moving to the gnome default would be pretty logical.

I sincerely hope that future releases of Ubuntu do not include a EULA by default, and if removing the application is the price we have to pay I am very happy to do it. As it happens, having a EULA is in my opinion against the nature of free software.

Il

[Slydder (slydder)]

There is no need to fork Firefox (is shit) as Iceweasel is already the standard solution. If they don't drop Firefox for iceweasel then it's time to fork Ubuntu to keep Ubuntu what it started out to be. Simple as that.

[Adam Porter (alphapapa)]

Switching to Epiphany as the default browser is not a good idea. There are far too many web sites that are important to users that are created or run by clueless admins who accept very few User Agents, even though others work fine. These include banking sites, government sites, and other sites that, when you need to use them, are very important, and often urgent. Only now is Firefox becoming widely accepted on these types of sites; let's not ruin the experience further by switching to a browser that will be rejected, leaving users confused, frustrated, and eager to switch back to Windows.

There are some users who don't even know what a "web browser" is; they may be just as confused by Firefox or Konqueror as they would be by Iceweasel.

There are other users that know IE and Firefox, and might be confused by Iceweasel. But good labeling and first-run design could probably work around this.

Having a EULA pop up in Ubuntu leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I don't think it is a good idea to do this. I think using Iceweasel would be a good solution, especially if it could be made clear that it's based on, and basically the same as, Firefox, and compatible with Firefox extensions.

[Ryan McLean (ryan1-00)]

The is an easy way to do this, as far as i can tell there is no way to accept/decline the eula as such.

So how about the 1st time the browser is opened the 1st web page displayed is the EULA is displayed.

I would find this way completely acceptable and unintrusive, I believe the majority of others would as well and if not I am sure I'll get shot down within the next 10 posts. :)

[Nic (ntetreau)]

When I try present Ubuntu to a new user, the only software he actually recognizes in the menu is Firefox, to remove that just for a irrelevant EULA is madness. People expect to have Firefox there, it's a very basic and well known internet browser and the first software a new user fires up to browse the web and google the names of all the other programs installed which he doesn't know!

From a different perspective, if you are not a new user to Ubuntu or don't agree with the EULA, you don't have to agree with it, you can remove it and use Epiphany or Iceweasel, it's a few clicks away for someone who knows Ubuntu already. For a new user, figuring out how to install firefox on Ubuntu without a web browser to start with and google it, will be difficult (the user will never know that Epiphany or Iceweasel are in fact web browsers!).

Let's just figure out a better way to present the EULA, I vote for adding it on the same page that opens up when you first install Firefox 3 (there is a presentation page with nice graphics) and not in an extra Tab.

[Alan Lord (theopensourcerer)]

+1 Add Iceweasel to main
+1 Move Firefox to restricted

[Onno Timmerman (onno-filosofie)]

Ask money from Mozilla to install their software. Afterall Ubuntu is promoting FireFox and now they are asking to do something damaging to Ubuntu. Just like google pays them for google searching Ubuntu can ask per install! A few mil. installs should be something worth!

If all trademark project will do this it will be a menace. So it now the time to halt this behavior. I vote not to give in and start a community pressure campaign on the Mozilla org.

[nitrogen (i-am-nitrogen)]

Iceweasel is a terrible name in English (at least American English). It has two consecutive accented syllables, making it awkward to pronounce. Plus, "weasel" is a moniker associated with devious, slimy, and unsavory individuals, like shady used car salesmen. Epiphany is a suitable name for a web browser, though it lacks the brand recognition of Firefox. If a new name is chosen for Firefox, please choose one that is more accessible than Iceweasel. Maybe something with an X in it ;).

[JohnFlux (johnflux)]

2008/9/15 nitrogen <email address hidden>:
> Plus, "weasel" is a moniker associated with devious, slimy, and unsavory
> individuals, like shady used car salesmen.

I think that was the point

[Yannis Tsop (ogiannhs)]

I believe its time to move to iceweasel. Now it just a EULA, but what comes next? One of the reasons I have moved to Linux (long, long ago) was to avoid those irritating EULAs and all the annoying 'I accept' stuff.

[Mark Crutch (markc-qsiuk)]

Accepting Mozilla's requirement for a EULA is the start of a slippery slope. What happens when the next big application also demands a EULA, and the one after that... (and yes, I'm aware of the OpenOffice.org EULA, and think that's a bad idea too).

I would suggest moving to Iceweasel by default, with the menu entry clearly labelled to indicate that it is a web browser.

On first launch it should display a page which briefly describes Mozilla's trademark position and indicates that Iceweasel is simply an unbranded version of Firefox. Finally, include an apt:// URL on that page for anyone who does specifically want to install Firefox.

[Tim Post (tinkertim)]

On Mon, 2008-09-15 at 09:23 +0000, Yannis T wrote:
> I believe its time to move to iceweasel. Now it just a EULA, but what
> comes next? One of the reasons I have moved to Linux (long, long ago)
> was to avoid those irritating EULAs and all the annoying 'I accept'
> stuff.
>

I think its time to wait and see what happens while exploring other
possibilities, I'm sure that our complaints have been heard, lets see
what comes of it.

Cheers,
--Tim

[Patrik Schönfeldt (bauer87)]

I remember that Ubuntu had a non-Mozilla icon for Firefox until the 6.10 release, so rebranding it again should not be that big deal. But I think it is good for a first-time-user's experience to have a well known brand in Ubuntu. I understand that but an EULA (for me) is a no-go for free software.

But if you decide to keep the Firefox brand and include the EULA please consider including it with the language packages. There are two reasons for that:
1. The EULA should be in you own language of course. The best would be as a html-page showing in the browser at the fist start showing information about the Firefox brand and the EULA.
2. There are many countries in the world where EULAs are legal void/ not legally binding. Showing it in those countries doesn't mean anything but disturbing the user. When you chose the language package that is meant to be used for one of those countries just don't include the EULA. I know that proprietary software does anyway include EULAs in those counties but this is just for making the user uncertain about the legal situation.

PS: My girlfriend likes "Iceweasel" because it has a cute mascot. Maybe this is one aspect why non-professionals like software. So "Ubuntu Browser" or "A Web Browser" wouldn't be that good, use something more emotional.

[k65 (petersanders65)]

I would say considerable pressure should be put on mozilla to remove the EULA. The absense of annoying messages like updates for every app separate, virus scanner messages AND EULAs all around was one of the biggest reasons I like ubuntu so much and recommend it to friends (I am not technical at all, just want things to work).

With unnecessary messages popping up on ubuntu I would reconsider my choice of OS severely again and would even consider a mac or windows again.

If abrowser is the same as firefox, why not pressure mozilla up until the point that Canonical says they will use abrowser instead, if the the EULA remains..?

[Tony Yarusso (tonyyarusso)]

On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 3:35 AM, Nic wrote:
> (the user will never know that Epiphany or
> Iceweasel are in fact web browsers!).

Firefox and Epiphany show up in the menu as "Firefox Web Browser" and
"Epiphany Web Browser", respectively. I would imagine that Iceweasel
is the same way.

[David Ayers (ayers)]

I am also a user... actually I'm a paying customer.

Please do not suggest to ignore license agreements.
Please do not suggest to hide EULA's. Consider that users are not necessarily administrators and the EULA is a agreement enforced upon the user.
Licenses are at the core of the freedom provided by Free Software and the reason Ubuntu exist.

The Ubuntu promise

 * Ubuntu will always be free of charge, including enterprise releases and security updates.
 * Ubuntu comes with full commercial support from Canonical and hundreds of companies around the world.
 * Ubuntu includes the very best translations and accessibility infrastructure that the free software community has to offer.
 * Ubuntu CDs contain only free software applications; we encourage you to use free and open source software, improve it and pass it on.

Trademarks are certainly gaining importance in a world of Free Software. I could consider a general statement about copyrights, patents and trademarks after a user logs on to /Ubuntu/ for the first time as a stand in for all relevant packages. The Ubuntu's universe repository should have a no-EULA policy.

After receiving the first my wife's Dell pre-installed / Canonical supported laptop and I started the DVD viewing application, I was presented an EULA. I did not read it. I uninstalled the package. I still use the preinstalled proprietary drivers but I consider that a bug that should be fixed in the future. I'm now considering actually filing it as one of my 10 support issues I've paid for just to communicate that a bit louder.

What makes Firefox special that the MPL/GPL/LGPL Licenses do not suffice. I'd be happy to use iceweasel if the Mozilla Foundation is trying to set a precedent that pave the way for OpenOffice.org, MySQL, Linux (as in the trademarked kernel) ... all started needing EULA's to remain enforcible trademarks. Do not give anyone the opportunity to unsettle users that believe that Ubuntu is allowing more rather than less proprietary software as it develops.

I cannot not consider renewing my Ubuntu subscriptions (yes, I have another one for the family Desktop) or purchasing new ones unless I see stronger activity to increase users freedoms by reduction of restricted drivers and EULA's. (Note that I have not investigated much yet so there may actually be strong activity for preinstalled Ubuntu in this area but if so Canonical is not doing a good job of communicating it.)

Free Software is not about free beer... and I'm doing my best to communicate this and to put my money where my mouth is. I've already got one blind eye (the proprietary drivers to make the hardware on preinstalled Ubuntu work). I want commercial grade desktop support for my wife an family's for Free Software as I just don't have the time to rely on community support in some cases. Please do not alienate me.

[Tom Arnold (g0tt)]

Yay for EULAs _everytime_ I use the Live-CD!

[Nick Rhodes (ngrhodes)]

This is not an issue about how Ubuntu should redistribute Firefox (in respect to having a completely free licence), but about how the user agrees to using Firefox.

Is there even any new issue of free-ness caused by the inclusion of this EULA ?

Is there any policy about how they should be displayed/formatted - is there any software with EULA in supported repositories that sets presidence ?

As the EULA is a legal document, Canonical supports and distributes Ubuntu internationally, are they aware if the EULA is locally acceptable (legal, enforceable etc) and what can be done if problems are found with the EULA ?

How will Canonical support bugs/issues with EULA in any software ?

Cheers, Nick

PS - When will can expect an EULA for Thunderbird ;) ?

[Prateek Karandikar (prateek.karandikar)]

There is an inherent contradiction here. Software in main is supposed to be free. Free to modify, distribute, etc. Ubuntu should be able to modify stuff in main, and then distribute their modifications. Modifications like... for example... getting rid of some annoying nag screen that appears at startup? If you believe that it's in main, then modify it and get rid of the unwanted dialog. Otherwise, put it in multiverse. Double standards are not acceptable.

[JohnFlux (johnflux)]

2008/9/15 Tom Arnold <email address hidden>:
> Yay for EULAs _everytime_ I use the Live-CD!

And usb thumb drive installations, and internet cafes that don't save
settings (all of them?), and read-only virtual machines

[ViktorNagy (viktor-nagy)]

have you ever opened this webpage? about:licence

I don't test intrepid, but I rpesume that's what you are talking about (or something similar)

if Mozilla's problem is really with the proprietary parts of Firefox, then it is clearly stated that they speak of this section

"
* Exceptions

Depending on how it was compiled, your product distribution and version may include the following portions which are not available under the above terms:

    * Image files containing the trademarks and logos of the Mozilla Foundation, which may not be reproduced without permission. (Copyright ©2004-2008 The Mozilla Foundation. All Rights Reserved. Some trademark rights are used under license from The Charlton Company.)
"

As this is clearly the case, but this one sentence definitely doesn't require a whole page EULA, why not incorporating this into the default ubuntu open page? At least at first startup. If you accept, go on and never ever ask it again. If you decline, then be redirected to a page on how to install an alternative abworser.

If I understood the initial comments properly, then this is the only part of the whole EULA that Mozilla cares about in our case.

V

[riu (stanray)]

In what country the trademark is registered? The trademarks of Mozilla and Ubuntu are invalid, except the country that accepted the trademark, not to say that reading an english language EULA for most countries is nonsense.

[Tomrade (tankfreakbray)]

We could use a re branded firefox as its no different and also we could add a catchy ubuntu style name

Fiery Ferret anyone?

[Tom Arnold (g0tt)]

Mozilla Corp. needs a ride on the clue train:

Read why Red Hat removed their Fedora EULA:

http://twinturbo.org/firefox/removing-the-firefox-3-eula/

Red Hats legal department is probably a bit more "up to the job" than Mozilla Corps legal adviser ..

But anyways .. what happens next??

[Robert (ubuntu-10-rmn30)]

For me, one of the main advantages free software has over other software is fewer licensing worries and never having to deal annoying EULA click throughs. If Ubuntu are going to bend over for Mozilla Corp. in this fashion I would much prefer to have (yet another) Ubuntu variant which simply substitutes Firefox (R) for a rebranded package. If Ubuntu cannot provide an experience which means never being presented with a jarring EULA to agree to, then I will be forced to find a distro that can.

This is clearly the thin end of the wedge. Is Ubuntu going to become the mess of useless legal mumbo jumbo presented to users at every opportunity on other OSes?

[Chris Sherlock (ta-bu-shi-da-yu)]

I can't understand why there isn't an easy way of accessing the EULA from the Help -> About menu. What's the deal with that?

[Laurent Bigonville (bigon)]

If anybody care about my opinion I'm for using Icedove/Iceweasel (minimize name proliferation, easier to merge/sync extensions from debian) in the first time and then using epiphany-webkit when it will be ready (features equivalent)

[Steven Brown (swbrown-launchpad)]

If Ubuntu's focus is on the user experience, then obnoxious things like EULAs shouldn't be present in any form. If you start compromising, you lose what makes you distinct. Debian already went the Iceweasel route to avoid these kinds of issues with Mozilla, and you can as well.

[Matthew East (mdke)]

The EULA is very disappointing because it isn't actually required for Mozilla's trademark protection (and indeed, doesn't do much to prevent infringement). Having said that I can see the reasons why this decision was taken, because there are obviously powerful reasons to include Firefox in Ubuntu, and Mozilla appear to have made this non-negotiable. However, I share the concerns raised by William and others that the decision was taken privately.

The front page of our website says that the Ubuntu project is a "community developed" project, and Canonical employees do a great job on a daily basis to ensure that this remains a justifiable statement. However, each decision that is taken privately in this way risks undermining it. Occasionally there are good reasons to take a decision privately, such as when a particular company wishes to deal/contract with Canonical directly instead of dealing with the Ubuntu community, and imposes confidentiality obligations on them which Canonical accepts in the interest of the Ubuntu project. However, those should be pretty rare, and I haven't seen any such suggestion here.

Ideally, I'd have liked to see a post about this change to ubuntu-devel for discussion, listing the various options for the project, soon after the upload that made the change.

[Rthaduthd Anthnhkrc (nthnuekeu-deactivatedaccount)]

On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Laurent Bigonville <email address hidden> wrote:
> If anybody care about my opinion I'm for using Icedove/Iceweasel
> (minimize name proliferation, easier to merge/sync extensions from
> debian) in the first time and then using epiphany-webkit when it will be
> ready (features equivalent)

Webkit doesn't have the plugins and addons Firefox has and I feel a
portable (linux, win32 and mac) browser in that regard (not only
rendering engine) is important.

PS: If we go the Iceweasel route we should not send "iceweasel" as
HTTP user-agent header because this breaks a _ton_ of sites.

[braweheart (braweheart)]

when installing Ubuntu, and you get past the stage when you fill in namn, and localisation and now only files are copied and installed, all to look at is the orange statusbar. Maybe here there could be some info, like
"Firefox is an open source web browser, the logo and the name Forefox are registered trademarks"

Additional info about Ubuntu (which also is a registered trademark, right?) could also be shown, but an installation doesn't take that long so it can't be too much info ;-)

[ushimitsudoki (ushimitsudoki)]

Follow Debian on this - any discussion has already been covered there in great detail so there's no need to re-plow that ground. It looks a LOT like Mozilla is timing this to pressure Ubuntu to make a "snap decision".

Also note that agreeing to the Firefox EULA is also agreeing to the Mozilla Firefox Privacy Policy and Mozilla Privacy Policy for which the user is responsible to check for updates. How many users are going to read and understand all three of those?

I'm disappointed that Mr. Suttleworth's initial response assumes that most Ubuntu users would prefer to have Firefox as the default browser (so much so that they would accept a EULA), and that the objective should be how Ubuntu can meet Mozilla's requirements.

Mozilla's "requirements" are only become relevant because they are coming dangerously close to conflicting with the requirements of Free and Open software. Were it not so, we would not be having this discussion.

[Matt Palmer (mattpalms)]

What happens if I don't agree to the EULA? Would firefox uninstall itself automatically?

We will have to have another browser installed by default (don't force me to use synaptic immediately after installation just to browse the web!)

Please, no EULAs in basic install - make Firefox available in Restricted by all means. However, regardless of whether Firefox is included or not in the basic install, we must have a browser that does not require a EULA available straight away.

[Mark Shuttleworth (sabdfl)]

I agree that Ubuntu needs to reflect the values of the broader
community, and decisions that are taken without a transparent community
process undermine that. At the same time, Ubuntu needs to be able to
engage effectively with companies that don't - and can't - operate
transparently. And we sometimes need to engage confidentially in order
to achieve our public goals.

For example, 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. And yet, engaging with that company both to make sure Ubuntu
works with its hardware and also to move them towards open source
drivers would seem to be precisely in keeping with our community values.

In this case, we have been holding extensive, sensitive and complex
conversations with Mozilla. We strongly want to support their brand
(don't forget this is one of the few companies that has successfully
taken free software to the dragons lair) and come to a reasonable
agreement. We want to do that in a way which is aligned with Ubuntu's
values, and we have senior representatives of the project participating
in the dialogue and examining options for the implementation of those
agreements. Me. Matt Zimmerman. Colin Watson. Those people have earned
our trust.

It's all too easy to say "screw Mozilla we'll use Iceweasel". Well, IMO
that would be a weaselly thing to do. Mozilla and Firefox are enormous
contributors to the digital commons and we owe it to them to figure out
how to be supportive of what they are doing. There are limits to that
debt, but we are well within those limits so far.

We continue to push towards an implementation that meets Mozilla's
requirements and is smooth for our users. There have been some good
suggestions here. We do have the option to move away from Firefox (as
you can see we have already invested in some of the work needed to have
that alternative in abrowser). I am resolutely opposed to calling an
unbranded firefox "Ubuntu Browser" (because we didn't write it) and I'm
equally opposed to calling it "Iceweasel" (because our inability to
agree with Mozilla is not also a rationale to belittle or demean them).
I very much hope we won't have to use it as the default.

Mark

[Matt Arnold (mattarnold5)]

  What is really lost by not having firefox branding... Debian went unbranded a few years ago for a license issue with the logo this is far worse in my way of thinking, If we let this one EULA in whats to stop openoffice or mysql as has been said above. I don't see Torvalds ever EULAing the kernel though but i digress. What is wrong here is that MozCorp thinks it is special in some way there is a proper place for license information and it is not in the user's face. If Mozilla can't live with that then why is their non-free logo still used in main. As has been staed above this package should be moved to multiverse immediately and the archive admins asked to sync IceWeasel

  > To act as though your rights are being infringed misses the point of free software by a mile.

 Maybe our rights are not being infringed but our principles certainly.

  > It's strongly our preference, and that of most of our users, to have Firefox as the browser in Ubuntu.

   Why? Is firefox so important to Canonical that you are willing to sacrifice a part of what makes the Free Software desktop unique. Are users so unintelligent that they won't go IceWeasel hmmmm that must be like that FireFox thing. I don't think so and to pretend otherwise is stupid and underestimates ! I don't consider myself a free software zealot but you have to draw the line somewhere. So I ask again what is really lost? A very badly drawn fox wrapped around a fuzzy blue ball and the word firefox. Do we really need it.

[Wiktor Wandachowicz (siryes)]

When installing Firefox on Windows only the Administrator sees the EULA, before Firefox installation starts (as most of Windows programs do). Other users running on their own accounts never see the EULA. Official builds from Mozilla site "Firefox Setup 3.0.1.exe" (or even "firefox-3.0.1.tar.bz2" for that matter) do not display EULA screen for a regular user as well. Why then should Ubuntu's Firefox do that? It's unfair.

Personally I would prefer all EULA's to be accepted either at package's installation time (like for example "sun-java5-*" and "sun-java6-*" do) or at the beginning of Ubuntu installation. Definitely not at the first run, unless all official Firefox versions do this as well. Either ALL versions do the same - INCLUDING Ubuntu - or another approach should be found.

I am not against Mozilla EULA, far from it. They have the most right to include it, and they really should keep doing it. However, why inconvenience the Ubuntu users exclusively? Please treat all users of different platforms the same way.

[JohnFlux (johnflux)]

Mark, your answers are well thought out and intelligent as always.

One suggestion - if Mozilla wants the EULA because of their phishing
etc protection, the EULA could be changed to a simple 'Do you want to
enable phishing support? Doing so means that you agree to <blah>"
and then having an enable/disable button.

On a different point, what does it mean for a non-US citizen to have
to agree to US export laws?

[JohnFlux (johnflux)]

> > It's strongly our preference, and that of most of our users, to have Firefox as the browser in Ubuntu.
>
> Why? Is firefox so important to Canonical that you are willing to sacrifice a part of what makes the Free Software desktop unique.

All he said was that Firefox is so important that we are willing to
sit down and discuss this at length. Which is correct and sensible.
There's no need to resort to insults here.

[Matthew East (mdke)]

Mark,

On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 2:25 PM, Mark Shuttleworth <email address hidden> wrote:
> I agree that Ubuntu needs to reflect the values of the broader
> community, and decisions that are taken without a transparent community
> process undermine that. At the same time, Ubuntu needs to be able to
> engage effectively with companies that don't - and can't - operate
> transparently. And we sometimes need to engage confidentially in order
> to achieve our public goals.

Of course that's true. I hope that in my comment above I made it clear
that confidentiality is sometimes justifiable. Indeed, the Ubuntu
project itself has a number of procedures which exist to respect
confidentiality.

> For example, 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.

Good news!

> In this case, we have been holding extensive, sensitive and complex
> conversations with Mozilla.

Obviously, it's impossible to have a complex and sensitive
conversation with an entire community, and it's totally appropriate
that this was carried out by leaders in the project. That said, there
is a difference between having that conversation, and then taking a
decision which is internal to the Ubuntu project (i.e. what browser to
ship). The first can be done sensitively, and the second can be done
transparently.

> we have senior representatives of the project participating
> in the dialogue and examining options for the implementation of those
> agreements. Me. Matt Zimmerman. Colin Watson.

That's very reassuring to know (not that I doubted it). My concern was
more that the issue had not been communicated as well as it could have
been - there was always going to be an outpour of opinion over this
issue, so it is best to confront that head on.

[Eugene V. Lyubimkin (jackyf-devel)]

I am totally seconding Matt Arnold and Debian way to live with this.

Mr. Shuttleworth, please consider again using Iceweasel (may be, with the "firefox" in User Agent). Brand is brand, but it's virtual, and users are real.

[leonbottou (leon-bottou)]

The Mozilla organization has the right to make this request
in exactly the same way that anyone has the right to write a
closed-source program if he wishes.

This just means that somebody is misguided within the Mozilla
organization, and this somebody will continue to try gaining
control over other people distributions.

In conclusion, Debian's response was correct:
Just ditch the branded firefox and make iceweasel the default.

- L.

[manzur (sl-solaris)]

Mark Shuttleworth, I got 2 Ideas:
1. Please dont screw mozilla, that is my favoprite browser ever
2. If it is absolutely necesary to do it, partner with google chrome it is not as good as mozilla, but is fine

But please keep mozilla Firefox!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[manzur (sl-solaris)]

Besides i Think as leonbottou said: Mozilla has the right, I think there is not problem with that, i think it is better, because it means that firefox from now on will have more support

[Norbert (nospamubuntu)]

EULA is a no-starter.

If rebranding is necessary it would be counter productive to re-invent the wheel. Iceweasel already been that road.
I haven't checked what this 'abrowser' is about, but if it is just Iceweasel renamed, then it is a bad idea. It will be much better effective to stick to one name, in order to weaken the Firefox branding.

Mozilla seems to be gearing-up for a XFree tantrum. Well, Xorg is doing a fine job. Iceweasel can be the Xorg of Firefox

[AphoxemaG (xeristian)]

I think the answer is a little more simple than people might expect. Firefox may be a problem but brand recognition is valued. Epiphany and IceWeasel are the most suggested solutions but they have their own problems such as user agents and connotations.

Just include Epiphany and/or IceWeasel to the release and don't remove Firefox until this can be discussed further.

Ibex is scheduled next month, there's no sense in a hasty decision like this, Mozilla has the legal right to demand this but Firefox is practically ubiquitous to the Ubuntu desktop. This is a problem that can be safely filed under 'later' at the risk of some sore toes. It's important and must be resolved, and since the problem can't be removed now, alternatives should be presented immediately.

Why it's important the alternatives should be available on the liveCD is to protect the users who only use liveCD's who aren't willing to apt-get another browser every time they start up and also for the users of LiveCDs to install the OS and may need a driver online during installation.

The question that can be addressed right now because it shouldn't interfere with 8.10 is just exactly where does Conanical have the right to get into agreements with other corporations without the notice of everyone else? No one had the opportunity to independently appeal to Mozilla on the situation, if they had, this would have never been a problem.

[Andrew (fishpie)]

I think that there may be a problem, with the idea of of linking to an explanation of the EULA. The EULA states "BY USING THE MOZILLA FIREFOX BROWSER, YOU ARE CONSENTING TO BE BOUND BY THE AGREEMENT. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS AGREEMENT, DO NOT USE THE MOZILLA FIREFOX BROWSER. " presumably clicking on a link in the browser constitutes "USING" so the user would see the plain English explanation of the EULA only after agreeing. Although would just scrolling down to the bottom of the EULA constitute "USING" firefox? The EULA appears to have been designed to be read before using firefox, rather than while using firefox.

[manzur (sl-solaris)]

PLEASE DO NOT SCREW MOZILLA FIREFOX, AND FORGIVE I AM SCREAMING, BUT THIS IS THE BEST WEB BROWSER EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Dragonlord (dreamsareimmortal)]

Mark, I can see your point, but I disagree with two things:

First, you say:

"It's all too easy to say "screw Mozilla we'll use Iceweasel". Well, IMO that would be a weaselly thing to do. Mozilla and Firefox are enormous contributors to the digital commons and we owe it to them to figure out how to be supportive of what they are doing. There are limits to that debt, but we are well within those limits so far.
...
We continue to push towards an implementation that meets Mozilla's requirements and is smooth for our users. There have been some good suggestions here. We do have the option to move away from Firefox (as
you can see we have already invested in some of the work needed to have that alternative in abrowser). I am resolutely opposed to calling an unbranded firefox "Ubuntu Browser" (because we didn't write it)"

It seems, to my surprise, as if you don't realise what open source is about (of course, I'm not implying that you don't, this is definitely not an assault, just trying to make my point). If they wanted to have "rights" on their software they shouldn't have released it as open source. This is the logic behind proprietary software, which is fine, but firefox has reached its level of popularity (at least partially) thanks to the open source evangelists. I myself have turned at least 4-5 friends to firefox because it's open source. This means that, if some parts of it don't suit you, you have the right to change them. If an EULA is not what we want for ubuntu, then we have every right to take it away - and, fine, change the name and logo of the browser as well. This is NOT dishonest or ungrateful to Mozilla because "they wrote it", and definitely not "weaselly" (which is a kind of harsh comment on Debian's decision IMO). They knew and accepted losing that right when they released it as open source. It means they agree that we have the right to take the program, change anything and call it whatever we want. In a sense, isn't that what Ubuntu is doing with Debian? Sure, there are many patches written by ubuntu developers, but the main part is Debian. Still, you take this work, make your changes and call it Ubuntu. Which is GREAT, and that's the magic of open source software. You have EVERY right to call an unbranded firefox "Ubuntu Browser", since it will be, well, the browser of Ubuntu. Or just make up a name since you don't like IceWeasel.

Second, I think that Prateek Karandikar summed it up pretty well a couple of hours ago:

"There is an inherent contradiction here. Software in main is supposed to be free. Free to modify, distribute, etc. Ubuntu should be able to modify stuff in main, and then distribute their modifications. Modifications like... for example... getting rid of some annoying nag screen that appears at startup? If you believe that it's in main, then modify it and get rid of the unwanted dialog. Otherwise, put it in multiverse. Double standards are not acceptable."

If you are not free to modify firefox to exclude the EULA appearing on the first startup, then it's not really free software, is it? So, if you have decided that "* Ubuntu CDs contain only free software applications; we encourage you to use free and open ...

[A. Bram Neijt (bneijt)]

On the main Ubuntu homepage, one promise states that Ubuntu will "encourage you to use free and open source software, improve it and pass it on.". In my opinion, promoting software that shows it does not want to encourage this is a violation of this Ubuntu promise. So I think Ubuntu should either remove the promise or more to another default browser.

[Dragonlord (dreamsareimmortal)]

BTW, for those crying out for not letting firefox go: On my main PC I use Debian. It has IceWeasel, and as far as I can tell it's EXACTLY the same thing as firefox except for the name, logo and user agent. I can use add-ons with no problem etc. There are several sites that would cause me trouble with Iceweasel's user agent string, so I changed it to "Firefox/3.0". Is that illegal? If not, then there's the solution to that too.

[manzur (sl-solaris)]

PEOPLE I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT OF VIEW, BUT IF WE SAY THAT WE JUST WANT FREE SOFTWARE IN UBUNTU, WE ARE CONFUSED BECAUSE LET ME TELL YOU THAT ADOBE FLASH AND JAVA PLUG INS FOR OUR WEB BROWSER ARE NON - FREE, SO WHAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH THIS EULA, JUST ACCEPT IT AND THATS ALL, THEY (MOZILLA, FIREFOX) DON'T WANT MONEY FROM THAT, DO THEY?, ACCEPT IT AND START NAVIGATING!!!!!!!!!

[Steven (steven3000)]

Well IMHO,
i think that firefox (with his brand and logo) in default install is a great thing for both Ubuntu and Mozilla, and brings advantages to both.

So the first thing to attempt should be to negotiate with Mozilla to find a solution (I'm not saying that we must obey to their demands, but maybe if Mozilla absolutely wants to stress to the end user that firefox name and logo are reserved, it can be done in the first tab).

Only if that doesn't work we can consider moving to an unbranded version of firefox/new browser (iceweasel for example, no need to call it another way something that already exists).

[Rory McCann (rorymcc)]

EULAs in the default install are against the spirit of open source software.

If Mozilla Corp, keeps insisting, drop Firefox and move to Iceweasel.

[jfbilodeau (jfbilodeau)]

If branding is an issue, use IceWeasel and label it 'Web Browser' or 'Surf the Web' in the Applications menu. Append the name IceWeasel to the label, and I'm willing to bet that in a year or two, most users will refer to the web browser simply as IceWeasel.

Please remember that version 1.0 of Firefox is less than four years old. It doesn't take long to build a brand.

[Daniël H. (daan-is-here)]

Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
"I am resolutely opposed to calling an
unbranded firefox "Ubuntu Browser" (because we didn't write it)"

I think the name "Web Browser" should be a better name, although the mobile gecko browser has also this name => rename that to "Mobile Web Browser".

Indeed I like it better when we have a smooth experience with the Firefox name and icon. But "Web Browser" is a better experience than have a EULA pop-up.

""Firefox/3.0". Is that illegal? If not, then there's the solution to that too."

No it is not. Firefox does not have a trademark on the user agent. If we rename it, than please don't change the user agent name.

I hope you get a good compromise with Mozilla/Firefox for this issue!

[Slight Slightly (slight--deactivatedaccount)]

I have to add my voice to those saying that the EULA is really unacceptable. I have much love for the developers of Mozilla for their work on FF and Thunderbird but I'm increasingly concerned by the behaviour of their management.

I would personally vote for respectfully telling Mozilla that an EULA is unacceptable for Ubuntu users. If they refuse to allow it to be removed then go for a rebrand. Iceweasel would be ideal for simplicity's sake but if it's felt that it's a slight to Mozilla then something else is fine, however FF should be in multiverse and not installed by default.

[Sam Liddicott (sam-liddicott)]

Without changing to iceweasel or abrowser why doesn't ubuntu ask mozilla for a slice of the google money for all the search referrals that come from firefox/google being the default browser/search pair.

And then switch to iceweasel.

Mozilla might come weaseling back asking for first place in exchange for just no eula when they get to add up their losses in google money. I reckon ubunto earns them a couple of million dollars a year.

Sam

[celtic_hackr (quiet-celt)]

Hello, I'm new here. I have to say this impacts me. While it can't really be classified as a bug, I think it does present a problem. I will not accept any EULAs on my systems. Therefore This package is unusable for me. I understand Mozilla's need to protect it's rights, but this was the wrong way. Had they required you to put up a license to use, and respect their trademarks ( a TULA), that I could live with. I will not have my software encumbered by EULAs though. Since you must implement this, and want to keep Firefox as a default option; I think you need to offer an alternative for those that click "do not accept". I think the number of users not willing to accept this will be significant. I for one do not welcome our new EULA overlords. BTW, I run my own software consulting firm, so I'm not just some crackpot. I'm a radical F/OSS crackpot consultant hiding behind an anonymous coward personality. ;)

[Dragonlord (dreamsareimmortal)]

Here's an idea if you absolutely want to keep firefox under these circumstances (which I'm against), present the EULA on installation (or during upgrade), with a note that, if you don't accept you can use a renamed version of firefox. Then, if someone clicks "I don't agree", firefox is not installed at all - instead, abrowser (or whatever you want to call the renamed firefox, I'd prefer IceWeasel for consistency) is installed. This is still not compliant with the "Ubuntu Promise" which I suppose you would like to keep (therefore remove ff from the default installation), but if you think it's THAT important that you have firefox by default it might be a reasonable solution.

[Nick Rhodes (ngrhodes)]

I forgot to mention.

Please provide and support a free option for those who do not want to accept the EULA

Thanks

[ianaré (ianare)]

I don't really see an EULA as a huge deal when you first run Firefox. Windows are used to them, for sure.

However, I do see it as a very bad precedent, the start of a slippery slope. Once you start giving in to what is really a ridiculous demand, who knows what else they will demand. Or what about if every app now wants to have their EULA ?

I understand and applaud your pragmatism, but in some cases, it is worth it to stick to your ideals, lest they be trampled upon. I think this is one of those cases.

[Morgan Collett (morgan)]

http://www.toad.com/gnu/sysadmin/index.html#firefox-eula-sux

[Ian (superian)]

Please please please no EULAs as a pop-up on first use.

If they insist, then yes, absolutely put it in multiverse.

[jfbilodeau (jfbilodeau)]

I see many comments stating that agreeing to a EULA is no big deal because Windows has tons of those.

Personally, I use Ubuntu for many reasons, including the fact that it's _free_ (speech) and it's _not_ Windows. A Windows user may be accustomed and even comfortable with EULAs, but I fail to see why this facet of Windows should also be 'ok' in the world of Linux & Ubuntu.

I for one want Linux to remain an OS that stands out from it's own merits -- not because it copied Windows.

[David Ayers (ayers)]

Dear Manzur,

what makes you believe that Ubuntu users are using proprietary PDF readers and Java plugins? BTW: I'd expect the Java packages in Intrepid Ibex to be the current Free Software versions. An EULA is fine in multiverse repository for those users who do not value their freedom as much.

Dear Mr. Shuttleworth,

I wish you and your colleagues much success in finding a way to cooperate with the Mozilla Foundation on this issue, but please keep the many users who are users due to your goals in mind.

[Alan S Milnes (deep64blue)]

I think there are two options here:-

1) Switch to Iceweasel etc as Debian does.

2) Include the EULA in the install process.

Keeping this EULA is *not* an option, personally I prefer Option 1.

[Richard Lamont (richard-lamont)]

As en end-user who has long sat on the idealist/pragmatist fence, I do think a Firefox EULA represents the thin end of a potentially catastrophic wedge. If Ubuntu accepts this, how many more upstream projects will use it as a precedent for their own variation on the theme? It's sufficiently important that Firefox should be taken out of 'main' and not installed by default. (If it isn't, I shall be taking Ubuntu out and installing Debian by default.)

[Ken Lewis (kenlewis)]

My $0.02: The issue really resides with policy from Mozilla. More important than the Ubuntu users or Ubuntu's SABDFL are Firefox End-Users, who need to exert pressure on Mozilla (MoFo or MoCo) to change their policy, irrespective of runnning Firefox on Windows, Mac or Ubuntu. The relevant Mozilla Bugzilla entry is: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=439604 (thanks LaunchPad!). I suggest we find somewhere more appropriate to discuss whether the issue tracker at bugzilla.mozilla.org is suitable for policy issues, but for taking issue with the performance of the software, I am unaware of a better venue.

K3n.

[Tim Besard (maleadt)]

I mainly use and love open-source initiatives because of two reasons:
1) it's flexible, and very user-adjustable;
2) if you want a complete and usable system, you don't have to look your back thanks to the thousands of agreements you had to work through.

Now I know some pieces of software which can be installed in Ubuntu do have certain agreements bound to them (Adobe's Flash, for example), but exactly those agreements and restrictiveness prevent those packages to residue in the "main" archive and/or be installed together with ubuntu-desktop. Every user has to decide himself whether he wants to use a non-free (or less-free) piece of software, and install that manually.

Equally so, I'd myself prefer Firefox not to be installed by default, but again after the user has manually decided to, so you have no EULA-hassle when installing a default system. Switching to IceWeasel (or rebranding it to "Ubuntu web browser", for the sake of user-friendliness) is IMHO the best option in this discussion.

[David V. (viro-free)]

It's a one-time click. Not a big deal, for me. I still prefer clicking that, and having the real thing, than having a renamed software with a name that sucks.

[jyio (inportb)]

It's a one-time click and a long-time commitment. As far as I know, ABrowser _is_ the real thing. I disagree with the idea of rallying behind a different brand just to weaken the Firefox brand, because that strengthens the alternative brand. I'd much rather have a browser called "Web Browser," which is what ABrowser currently is.

SilverWave raises some excellent points; I agree completely.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/firefox-3.0/+bug/269656/comments/137

[Usama Akkad (damascene)]

Lets ask Mozilla kindly to stop this thing. They did many good things.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=439604

[Martin (martin615)]

PJ (of Groklaw I presume :) raises some interesting questions.

If Mozilla and/or Canonical can't answer them I think it's time for a story on Groklaw to ruffle their feathers . ;) Seriously though, I think a story on Groklaw would be good anyway so the community can get a final and somewhat legitimate answer to this question.

[Tom Arnold (g0tt)]

How about two Live-CDs? One with abrowser and one with Firefox?

From what I can see in MozCorps Bugzilla it seems that they really think this will not hurt their brand in any way.
They are obviously mistaken. Introducing the concept of EULAs to free software isn't an achievement to be proud of.

When you think about it one Ubuntu promise is not really true:
"Ubuntu CDs contain only free software applications; we encourage you to use free and open source software, improve it and pass it on."
But it was only really true for Gobuntu, so nothing has changed.

Well .. let's see what the Fedora and OpenSuse communities think. The Fedora people have successfully fought against their own stupid EULA, so it should be interesting.
Arch ,Gentoo and many other distros have shipped unbranded builds of Firefox (they say Bon Echo or now Gran Paradiso in the title) without any problems.

The Arch package and executable is still called firefox .. nobody really seemed to care a lot. It is not like:
OMG! Arch has no Firefox(TM)! It must be crap!

Nobody cares.

People do however care about stupid meaningless contracts in legalese with allcaps that are presented to them at startup.

[Andrew (fishpie)]

I was originally firmly against the EULA, it seemed as pointless as it was annoying. I was fustrated by the lack of a reasonable explanation that I could understand. However, I now strongly suspect that the Mozilla Corporation have no choice but to insist on the EULA because of an agreement that they have with Google. Firefox binaries were originally covered by a EULA because the MPL is difficult for users to understand[1]. When Firefox 2 was released, the privacy policy clause was the only clause added to the Firefox EULA[2]. Every half hour the fishing filter introduced in Firefox 2 downloads a site blacklist from Google, this slightly compromises the firefox users privacy because Google know that someone at the users IP address is browsing the web using Firefox[3]. So I suspect that Google wishing to protect themselves from allegations of spying on Firefox users have insisted on the privacy policy being prominent and, agreed by Firefox users. However, no one who knows about it can talk about it, because of non disclosures agreements. I am not suggesting that there is anything sinister going on, just cautious lawyers keeping everyone quiet.

The Mozilla EULA states "Nothing in this Agreement will be construed to limit any rights granted under the Open Source Licenses" so the EULA does not make Firefox any less free.

[1]http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2004/11/08/firefox-end-user-license-agreement/
[2]http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/legal/eula/firefox2-en.html
[3]http://www.internetbusiness.co.uk/26102006/firefox-2-releases-privacy-storm/

[furicle (furicle)]

Mark, I think reading these comments should make it quite clear....

We hate EULAs more than we like the Firefox brand. We'd all be happy to have Firefox in restricted, and even make it easy to install - but an alternative HAS to be the default. All this is of course assuming your charm can't sway those guys around to our side. :-)

It's too big a precedent. This is one of those little things that really do matter - a 'character' moment if you will.

As for the alternatives, if you think the IceWeasel name is inappropriate, let's go talk to Debian about changing it. I'm sure they'd be willing to listen!

[mathew (meta23)]

Just adding my vote:

1. Please at least make iceweasel or icecat available in the Ubuntu repositories.

2. If Firefox has a proprietary EULA, it absolutely does not belong in the main repository. Put it with the other proprietary software.

I hate EULAs. One reason I use free software is that at work, I'm not supposed to randomly agree to EULAs that haven't been vetted by the legal department.

And I don't think anybody cares about having Firefox in the default install. What they care about is having *the functionality of Firefox* in the default install. So long as they can find the icon for a web browser and it has the functionality, I really don't think they care what it's called. I mean, consider the number of people who call Internet Explorer "the Internet" or "the e icon" and have no idea what it's actually called.

[jfbilodeau (jfbilodeau)]

"The Mozilla EULA states "Nothing in this Agreement will be construed to limit any rights granted under the Open Source Licenses" so the EULA does not make Firefox any less free."

I would be curious to hear from the horse's mouth why the EULA was added so suddenly. It's true that the code continues to be free, but some of the resources are not. To me, that makes the Firefox(TM) package non-free.

I love Firefox(TM), but Mozilla Corp. is starting to annoy me. Furthermore, Google Chrome promise to be what Firefox(TM) was to Internet Explorer ~4 years ago. Competition, even in the FLOSS, world is good!

[JohnFlux (johnflux)]

2008/9/15 Andrew <email address hidden>:
> using Firefox[3]. So I suspect that Google wishing to protect themselves
> from allegations of spying on Firefox users have insisted on the privacy
> policy being prominent and, agreed by Firefox users. However, no one who
> knows about it can talk about it, because of non disclosures agreements.
> I am not suggesting that there is anything sinister going on, just
> cautious lawyers keeping everyone quiet.

Which was why I proposed to change the EULA to a dialog that says
something like:

"Do you wish to enable phishing protection? This will require sending
communication to google but no private information will be sent unless
you tag a suspected site."
[Enable] [Disable phishing protection]

That way it's not a EULA, the user is informed, and users who don't
want to can disable phishing protection and still use firefox.

[Pitabred (ubuntu-pitabred)]

I'm really not liking that Firefox sprung this on Ubuntu at such a late date. They HAVE to know that the release is coming up, so they're putting Ubuntu in a very hard place. As much respect as I have for the brand, shifty moves like that do NOT sit well with me, and erodes my confidence in the direction of the Mozilla project. It'd be enough for me to really want to use IceWeasel as the main browser. They're trying to force their morality on Ubuntu's brand, and if Ubuntu capitulates, it will be something that they can use to reinforce their non-standard behavior.

The only compromise I can think of that might be palatable is to have the initial homepage of Firefox be the EULA. The "agreement" only applies to the browser, so why have it any place other than the browser? Let the user see it there, rather than allowing Mozilla to dictate operation of any other part of the system. It's not their place.

[manzur (sl-solaris)]

In the case you have to replace it, (mozilla) partner with google chrome and use it by default, but think about replacing firefox i dont see the problem!

[Robert Penz (robert-penz-name)]

I think we as community should step up and that these things must be nipped in the bud. If Firefox starts soon every program gets an EULA-screen. After a fresh install of Ubuntu I need to click > 20 EULA screen then.

I did a fast banner (<5min), maybe someone makes a better one.

[Mark Shuttleworth (sabdfl)]

Matthew East wrote:
> That's very reassuring to know (not that I doubted it). My concern was
> more that the issue had not been communicated as well as it could have
> been - there was always going to be an outpour of opinion over this
> issue, so it is best to confront that head on.
>

Yes, that's true. Once we knew we would have to do something along these
lines, it would have been sensible to brief CC and TB in advance, and we
could have done that within the constraints of our discussion with
Mozilla. Fair criticism.

Mark

[niackho (niackho-ubuntu)]

I think I found a bug :
" We’ll continue to compete in the browser world, and we’ll continue to do well. We’ll continue to produce a product that people choose, and trust and understand is theirs. We’ll continue to do this as part of our overall mission — building an Internet where individual, civic and social value are paramount." Mitchell Baker
This was posted onTuesday, September 2nd, 2008 at 10:04 there :
http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2008/09/02/mozilla-firefox-and-google-chrome/

By enforcing the EULA presence in Ubuntu, I feel that this software is no more ours, since they force upon us something that we don't want.

The trademarks and copyrights are already there in firefox's menu at "help -> about Mozilla Firefox" !
There is no need for an EULA.

And I must had something from http://standblog.org/blog/post/2006/02/28/93114681-firefox-les-standards-et-l-avenir-du-web-l-independance-du-projet-mozilla-5-5
"On le voit, si la direction de Mozilla venait à faire défaut, le fork ne tarderait pas, d'autant qu'il existe déjà des compétences - en dehors de Mozilla Corp. - capables de prendre le code et de porter le projet, ce qui une indéniable garantie de pérennité pour le logiciel, et qui tient à sa nature Libre. Faut-il rappeler que pendant les cinq ans où le navigateur dominant et propriétaire a été laissé en jachère, il n'y avait aucun recours? A ce titre, le code de Firefox est infiniment plus pérenne que les navigateurs propriétaires, et la Mozilla Corporation sait qu'elle se doit de continuer dans la droite ligne de sa mission : "promouvoir le choix et l'innovation sur Internet", faute de quoi elle verrait la communauté la sanctionner en quittant le navire." 28 février 2006, 02:25, Tristan Nitot.

It is in french but this roughly says that if Mozilla makes something wrong, the community will/must leave the boat.

I hope that Mr Shuttlework will make the right decision if Mozilla doesn't recognize their error : put firefox out of 'main', replace it by Iceweasel/epiphany.

(sorry for my english)

[manzur (sl-solaris)]

And What is th problem, with EULA, the look? they are not getting or asking for money... one of the things i like from ubuntu is mozilla firefox, if you take it out we will never have better softwares

[John Vivirito (gnomefreak)]

Everyone that has a problem with the EULA doesn't have an issue with MPL? this seems a little weird IMHO but i guess its more of a user seeing this rather than not. I like the idea of having it there as hiding it would be wrong and people than would complain that we are not showing our hands up front.

As dfor abrowser it is in 8.10 atm however it is a choice if you want to install it. It doesnt replace Firefox however if you install it it will remove Firefox but keep Firefox-3.0 and that i have to discuss further on how that is working

[Dave Morley (raceprouk)]

The key difference is you don't have to accept the MPL before using the software. In fact, you don't even have to know it's there! Plus, you can always use Firefox according to the GPL or LGPL if you prefer.

EULAs belong to proprietory software, and have no place in the FLOSS world. Besides, all the Firefox names and imagery are protected by trademark and copyright law. There's no logical justification for forcing an EULA down our throats.

[Eero (eero+launchpad)]

Manzur, sorry if I sound harsh but are you retarded? It looks like you have been shouting in caps most of the time and you don't understand what other people are saying.

People have been saying that Firefox shouldn't be in main repository but it could be in multiverse. Default browser just should be something else than Mozilla Firefox with EULA. Many people use Linux because they are sick of EULAs and other proprietary crap that have no legal base in most countries and nobody wants to use live-CD that shows them EULA (which they might disagree) every time they reboot.

[AlejandroRiveira (ariveira)]

I want to add my voice to the chorus that wantfirefox replaced by IceWeasel (no need for
another unbranded firefox "fork") or by epiphany (webkit or gecko) in default install.

[Andrius Štikonas (stikonas)]

@ manzur

It is not money that are important but freedom that we can have or not have while using our software. We are not making just a cheap copy of windows with its EULA's. And do you like mozilla firefox or its functionality?

[vexorian (vexorian)]

Some points:

* EULA = BS that threatens to corrupt ubuntu, yes, really. Letting this happen will allow a lot of BS to get in later.
* IceWeasel is EXACTLY firefox, yeah that's right, the only differences are the name and a logo, nope you won't lose functionality, not at all, please stop using "better browser" or "functionality" as reasons for keeping this EULA
* Free software should not ever govern use, only distribution, this EULA will break everything up.

[John Vivirito (gnomefreak)]

Dave, so what you mean is that as long as you dont see it its ok to restrict you all they like? just because you dont see it doesn't mean you don't have to abide by it.
What is the problem with Mozilla wanting to do what they want? Im willing to bet if i looked at xulrunner it has EULA and that would cancel all your other ideas for browsers out. off hand i can think of maybe 2 browsers in our or Debian's repos that do not use Xulrunner.

[Charles Profitt (cprofitt)]

Perhaps, as a suggestion, we could have a choice during installation of installing Firefox or 'blank name' browser.

[jfbilodeau (jfbilodeau)]

As voiced by many: "one of the things i like from ubuntu is mozilla firefox, if you take it out we will never have better softwares."

Iceweasel and ABrowser are Firefox(TM) minus the branding. The only thing you loose is an unwelcomed EULA.

On the other hand, not using the Firefox(TM) Trademark, but using the Firefox code (Iceweasel or, ABrowser, etc) give you the software freedom you and I have come to appreciate.

To me, it feels like Mozilla Corp is starting to loose touch of FLOSS and it's community. I hope Ubuntu doesn't follow in their footstep.

[vexorian (vexorian)]

Regarding how brand and logo help users stay:
- Most of the new users come from the IE world.
- Most of the old users would already know that IceWeasel is exactly firefox.
- The rest are probably already open minded enough to give a try to an OS that comes without a browser they know by name, or smart enough to google iceweasel and find out the truth .

[Dave Morley (raceprouk)]

I think you misunderstand me John Vivirito. I object to Mozilla's insistence on having an EULA just as much as anyone else here. However, the MPL doesn't restrict use, only distribution, so it's no worse than the GPL.

[Dave Morley (raceprouk)]

I'll throw my £0.02 in with the IceWeasel nominations; anything to not have an EULA.

[RichardMBoos (richboos)]

@ Mark Shuttleworth

I understand that you wouldn't want to rename Firefox to "Ubuntu Web Browser" since it wasn't coded by "us".

What about abrowser, could we rename that to "Web Browser" or "Ubuntu Web Browser" instead?

Anyone can answer me and let me know the scoop on abrowser, I am unfamiliar with it until today. Is that coded by us?

[Renzo Carbonara (k0001)]

Mozillla is forgeting what Free Software means... This is totally unacceptable.

Lets have IceWeasel, lets follow Debian approach, and please! lets save Mozilla! since they are the ones who need to be saved!!!

Free Software is all about freedom, and Mozilla is not.

[Vadim Peretokin (vperetokin)]

Using a rebranded version of Firefox, first off, wouldn't be giving much
credit to Mozilla for their work. I'm not sure why does Debian encourage
that practice and then wrongly accuse others (read, Ubuntu) of doing the
same.

[obiazzi (obiazzi)]

"Mozilla and Firefox are enormous
contributors to the digital commons and we owe it to them to figure out
how to be supportive of what they are doing. "

Mark, i agree, but don't forget that *we* , the community of free/open source users, are the ones who *made* a brand for Firefox ( i'm advertising Firefox and bothering my home/work mates since 2004 ).

Mozilla *owes* us.

[Dragonlord (dreamsareimmortal)]

This striked me as the right time to re-read the "Ubuntu philosophy" as written on ubuntu.com:
http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/philosophy

All of the text is interesting in relation to this conversation, for example:
For Ubuntu, the 'free' in 'free software' is used primarily in reference to freedom, and not to price....
...Quoting the Free Software Foundation's 'What is Free Software', the freedoms at the core of free software are defined as:

    * The freedom to run the programme, for any purpose.
    * The freedom to study how the programme works and adapt it to your needs.
    * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others.
    * The freedom to improve the programme and release your improvements to the public, so that everyone benefits.

Taking out the EULA from the first time you run firefox and sticking it somewhere in the menus, without asking the user to read it and accept it in order to use the program, seems to be exactly in the spirit of the second and fourth of these points: it would be "adapting firefox to ubuntu's needs" and "improvement of the program". This is the right we are given by choosing free software. This is why we have chosen it. If mozilla doesn't want this change to be released under their name and trademark, that is fine! Just rename it and everyone's happy. I mean, sure, firefox carries some brand recognition, but is it worth the price of "legalizing" EULAs in free software? Apart from that, when you get a new user to try Ubuntu (or linux in general), you want to show them improvements, not "the same thing like windows, just free". Their usual response will be either that they have already paid for windows, or that they've got a copy anyway. We gotta give a significantly different experience in a good way, show people that with ubuntu they won't have all the things that annoy them with windows - like being forced to accept EULAs.

Anyway, I'll close this with an idea: since Ubuntu is "community developed", as it says on ubuntu.com, why not let the community decide this? I can understand why there have to be private discussions with companies, but now we have heard all opinions, Mark has already written 3-4 times here making his point and there are still more people asking for a switch to a renamed firefox or to epiphany. This seems like a big deal to many of us, so how about making an open poll or something? This is a significant decision in ubuntu development, so, if there is a time to ask for the community to get involved, that time is now.

[John Vivirito (gnomefreak)]

the tech board meetings (for program topics) is an everyone invited as well as the Community council meetings (non tech topics) so please feel free and discuss this with us when its on agenda

[Vadim Peretokin (vperetokin)]

For what it's worth, one thing all posters here agree on - the EULA is
unacceptable. Especially for such a core program like a Web Browser.

[John Vivirito (gnomefreak)]

This was discussed in grave detail as well as it went on for a long time Mark and others decided that keeping Firefox branding was better for us than not. I dont remember the wikis that had it on it but im sure they are there still. We dont hold any "private" meetings that affect the end user non of our meetings are private come to think about it.

[bedfojo (bedfojo)]

+1 to confirm that this is a bug.

+1 for the solution to ship Iceweasel (or renamed "abrowser") as default. No EULA as default please. By all means have Firefox (TM) plus EULA in Multiverse.

This strikes me as an Ubuntu user (and advocate to my friends and family, many of whom now run it solely due to my persuasion) as a pivotal moment in Ubuntu's evolution. It's that difficult moment where you ask yourself whether, and how much, to compromise in order to reach a laudable goal. That goal is clearly bug #1. But replacing Microsoft's market share with something equivalent would, in the end, make the whole exercise futile. Ubuntu is not remotely there yet in MS equivalence (in market share or "badness"). But it is a slippery slope. Proprietary drivers I understand as a (hopefully temporary) necessary evil: some hardware will simply not work without them. But an unnecessary EULA on a key component? That's a step too far I feel.

I also feel that communication of this change has been poor: the first I knew about it was when the EULA appeared on an update to the Intrepid install I had solely for bug testing purposes. I thin the reason that this bug report is being polluted with a philosophical discussion is that the change was not opened up for discussion in a more appropriate forum before its implementation. And as an aside, to our sabdfl, please ensure that you don't lose the "b"! I, and may others, hugely appreciate what you have done so far: please help us keep the faith.

As regards Mozilla's behaviour, I haven't had a chance to try Chrome yet (all my 3 computers run Ubuntu uniquely). But I was already slightly predisposed against it due to its EULA and the fact that I trusted Mozilla more than Google in the "do no evil" stakes. Now I'm not so sure that I should trust either, which means that pure functionality will win. Yes, they have a legal right to enforce trademark protection. But enforcing your rights to the death is not always a wise move. And IAAL, BTW.

[Mike Chambers (mike-miketc)]

I am a Fedora user, and have heard about this little argument and someone brought it up thinking we did it as well. Well, we don't show that EULA at all but we do have a link to it. The URL below is how Fedora shows it during the first run of firefox and maybe if Ubuntu did the same think it might help? Good luck on your decision.

http://fedoraproject.org/static/firefox/

[Tres Finocchiaro (tres-finocchiaro)]

So if Firefox ships with its own start-page at http://www.google.com/firefox/ can that same page be used?

Since Firefox 3.0 came out, I've noticed it has non-intrusively asked to store passwords on the top of the page. Perhaps that area would be a good candidate (stays there until you read perhaps?).

Another creative place could be the "download animation", which non-intrusively notifies users when a download is finished.

Are any of these possibilities?

Here's a "download notifier" mock-up:

http://img382.imageshack.us/img382/1844/agreementyk1.png

-Tres

[Alex Ruddick (alexrudd0)]

Would turning off anti-phishing by default make the EULA unnecessary?

[Vadim Peretokin (vperetokin)]

Mike Chambers: that is a very good solution. It keeps the Firefox
branding (which is important, it's something people recognize more
than Ubuntu itself) and isn't obtrusive.

[Christopher Blizzard (blizzard-0xdeadbeef)]

Hi! Mitchell Baker has made a post on this topic:

http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2008/09/15/ubuntu-firefox-and-license-issues/

The most important take away is that we (Mozilla) has been working on a new license for quite a while that makes it clear that the code is governed by FLOSS licenses and that we didn't make Ubuntu of Canonical aware of the new licenses before they put the old one into their packages, hence a lot of the confusion.

Mitchell and others will be making posts on the topic over the next few weeks in order to get feedback on the new license, so stay tuned.

[Wiktor Wandachowicz (siryes)]

@Mike Chambers: Thanks for sharing the idea. This seems to be the most balanced solution. Elegant, clean, yet effective.

My compliments for Fedora to achieve this. Please include something like this in Ubuntu as well?

[rowdog (laotrared)]

This EULA business has little to do with trademarks and everything to do with the Mozilla Corporation trying to assert power. Think about the timing, Chrome hits the street and the next thing you know Moz Corp is trying to strongarm Ubuntu (and others) into making it very clear to users that they are using Firefox. Not only that, but Moz Corp asserts that power when we have the least possible choice about whether to comply.

IMHO, the only reasonable response to this blackmail attempt is a total rejection of the offer. We should throw this thing back in their faces and say "drop the EULA or get dropped from Ubuntu".

I haven't even got started on ethics and licenses, and I won't, because this is about power more than principles. If we give in now, we'll be at the mercy of Moz Corp for a very very long time.

[Ian (superian)]

The basic question Mozilla need to be asked is why they think it's a good idea.

If it's around the phishing feature, then that needs to be off by default and the 'we may get this wrong, please don't sue us if we do' popup would be ok if and when it is enabled.

[furicle (furicle)]

On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 3:03 PM, Mike Chambers <email address hidden> wrote:
> I am a Fedora user, and have heard about this little argument and
> someone brought it up thinking we did it as well. Well, we don't show
> that EULA at all but we do have a link to it. The URL below is how
> Fedora shows it during the first run of firefox and maybe if Ubuntu did
> the same think it might help? Good luck on your decision.
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/static/firefox/

That's a clean, well phrased page (in English anyway)

Food for thought!

[Tom Arnold (g0tt)]

Also:

Our friend Jeff Spaleta seems to have posted a solution:

https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2008-September/msg01849.html

[RichardMBoos (richboos)]

http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2008/09/15/ubuntu-firefox-and-license-issues/

+1 to the following quote from Mackenzie:

My thinking is that since the MPL & the trademark stuff aren’t really about end-use, but about developers, that putting it in an official Firefox release doesn’t make a lot of sense. Since that stuff is for developers, it should go in the COPYRIGHT file in the CVS and tarballs if it’s not in there right now. That’s how that stuff is usually handled, and I think it’s how Mozilla has done it til now.

[Tom Arnold (g0tt)]

Err,

https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2008-September/msg01833.html

[Max Rabkin (max-rabkin)]

Mark: By putting forward "Iceweasel", I certainly never meant that Mozilla was doing anything weaselly, and I don't see any evidence that this was the original intention of the name. It's simply that ice is not fire and a weasel is not a fox. I believe that Mozilla even *suggested* this as a name for unbranded versions.

I still think Iceweasel is the best option, but how about... IceIbex?

[Vadim Peretokin (vperetokin)]

Or why not a sane name that describes the software, "Ubuntu Web Browser".

[bedfojo (bedfojo)]

Wow. I've read Mitchell Baker's blog post on this topic:

http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2008/09/15/ubuntu-firefox-and-license-issues/

Now that is honest, intelligent and impressive. I suspend my suggestion above that "I trusted Mozilla more than Google in the "do no evil" stakes. Now I'm not so sure ..." To err is human: to admit a mistake and try to fix it is divine.

Maybe now our sabdlf and Mitchell Baker could continue the "extensive, sensitive and complex conversations" between Ubuntu and Mozilla on that basis. And maybe take into account the Redhat approach at the same time.

[Rhialto (rhialto-xs4all)]

I don't know if anyone has noticed, but I tried this on another Unix system: If you compile the browser source yourself, and you don't specify the configure option "--enable-official-branding", you expect to get a version without these branding problems. But you STILL get the cursed EULA window, even though your browser now calls itself Minefield.

I think that is even more of a scandal.

[Andrius Štikonas (stikonas)]

@ Vadim
What would may happen if we do so:
Ubuntu Web Browser, Gentoo Web Browser, Fedora Web Browser, openSUSE Web Browser, gNewSense Web Browser and 200 other Web Browsers. There is no need of such proliferation.

[Vadim Peretokin (vperetokin)]

Well, if every distribution uses Firefox as their default browser,
then I don't see an issue.

[evildonkey (theevildonkey)]

Orly?

[Remco (remco47)]

For all the people that say: "respect Mozilla, use their brand"... they don't WANT us to use their brand! We are not allowed to mention "Mozilla" or "Firefox" in a browser based on Firefox.

So even if we want to give credit by calling it Firefox, we can't because we have modifications. And those modifications are what makes it free software. Mozilla can't have their cake and eat it too! They can't protect their brand this way while remaining free software. Firefox is non-free.

[Nathan MWF (tan+mc+logic)]

Well, Mobilin (the Intel project) recently switched (with the intro of 2.0) to Fedora (from Ubuntu). They claimed that the main reason for the switch was that Intel liked the way .rpm packages held information about licensing.

It is sad to see Linux sarting down the road to having the pointless pop-ups that everyone hates in other software (esp. Microsoft Vista).

Firefox is a bit scared, and acting from that fear. Google is a main donor to the Mozilla Org/Com and the FirefoxTM project. They just released their own browser, Chrome. I see a reduced market share and funding in the Mozilla/FirefoxTM future.

[Christopher Blizzard (blizzard-0xdeadbeef)]

The conspiracy comments here about Google and Chrome are completely unfounded. We've been working on licensing issues for quite a few months now, well ahead of the Google announcement and the two would be unrelated anyway. We don't think like that.

The fact that we still show a license even without official branding is just a bug - simple as that.

Jeff Spaleta's posts about Firefox and Fedora are probably the best information that I've seen from the Fedora / Red Hat side and it's something that's worth looking at since they solved it in a way that managed to not offend users.

Let me know if you have more questions. Happy to answer them.

[Bossieman (leifsandvik)]

+1 Add Iceweasel to main
+1 Move Firefox to restricted

Please, please, please do not force the end users to see this EULA.

[PowerUser (i-am-sergey)]

I have the following idea: system could display own license dialog for example during install instead. Citing GPL and other relevant licenses of bundled software. One of such cited licenses could be Firefox EULA as well. So in any scenario user have to accept licenses once per system installation (if user not agree to obey licenses of installed programs that's bad anyway?).

Pros:
- Users will be aware of licensing terms
- Acceptance of licenses is not overcomplicated for users.
- Regardless of number of used programs only one dialog.

Cons:
- I do not know if such solution will satisfy Mozilla.
- Someone still will be unhappy with such dialog (but it is not totally bad to make users aware of licensing terms of bundled software and system parts, isn't it?).
- Quite many text in one place to read before acceptance.
- Some users may not want to be bound by Firefox EULA (but they either have to agree or things will completely fail).

P.S. IMHO Mozilla doing somewhat wrong here since lots of these people who helped them to became popular now blames them strongly. Slightly stronger than they may want. However it's up to them... :(

[GeorgeB (solar.george-deactivatedaccount)]

> What about abrowser, could we rename that to "Web Browser" or "Ubuntu
> Web Browser" instead?
>
> Anyone can answer me and let me know the scoop on abrowser, I am
> unfamiliar with it until today. Is that coded by us?
>
IIRC abrowser is simply firefox minus the branding

solar.george

[Tomrade (tankfreakbray)]

a re branded browser fiery ferret sounds good to me :)

[kafpauzo (kafpauzo)]

If a new name is needed, maybe a better name would be The Ubuntu Fox. Or maybe, in a similar vein, UbuntuFox.

* This uses the two strong brands Ubuntu and Firefox.
* It suggests quite clearly that it's a version of Firefox that has been adapted by Ubuntu for Ubuntu.
* It makes it very clear that Mozilla and Firefox are not responsible for the adaptations made by Ubuntu.
* It gives recognition to Mozilla and Firefox.
* It's kinda cute.

[lunch (launch-mailinator-com)]

> I have the following idea: system could display own license dialog for example during install instead.
> Citing GPL and other relevant licenses of bundled software. One of such cited licenses could be Firefox EULA as well.
> So in any scenario user have to accept licenses once per system installation
> (if user not agree to obey licenses of installed programs that's bad anyway?).

So if user dont want to accept Mozilla EULA he will be not able to install Ubuntu?

[Slight Slightly (slight--deactivatedaccount)]

I suppose there's little chance of anyone reading the comments before chiming in?

Some key information:

http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2008/09/15/ubuntu-firefox-and-license-issues/

http://lockshot.wordpress.com/2008/09/15/firefox-eula-in-linux-distributions/

https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2008-September/msg01833.html

http://fedoraproject.org/static/firefox/

The sky is not falling.

[A. Bram Neijt (bneijt)]

For those poeple who would like to be able to install IceWeasel from the repositories, the following links are advised:

http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/3862/

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/firefox/+bug/199789

The brainstorm link differs from the one earlier, because a cry for IceWeasel has been around for some time. Now that (parts) of the community see the real value of it, these old abnormalities deserve attention once more. Vote, click and cry out, it's all part of the whole community process.

[kafpauzo (kafpauzo)]

Maybe the following can help a little in clarifying where the problem is and what is needed.

I think the most important drawback of a click-and-accept EULA is that it shatters the wonderfully welcoming experience of installing Ubuntu.

I migrated from Windows to Ubuntu somewhat recently. I was delighted by the impression that loving care had been put into offering me a carefully composed system, with a beautiful theme, along with impressive repositories where I can feel warmly welcome any time I want to add something to my system.

All in all it was an amazing and joyous experience. And this happy experience was much more important than the money saved. It made me warmly enthusiastic about Ubuntu in a way that I had never expected.

In this context, a series of click-through EULAs for various applications would become seriously jarring. Very little of that warmly welcoming feeling would survive.

It would be almost as bad if there's a first Web page that pushes me down with wordings like "you are consenting to be bound by the Agreement".

It's very different if software that I pick and choose from the repositories shows such EULAs. As long as it's a minority among the applications, and doesn't grow out of hand, it won't mar the feeling of a welcoming Ubuntu, since it's something outside Ubuntu that I pick myself. Then if I don't like the conditions and prefer to uninstall the software, I know clearly that the consequence of this choice is limited to the removal of that particular software.

But if it happens while I'm installing Ubuntu itself, it will inevitably ruin that delightful experience.

Having said that, maybe the default browser can go to a special first page without marring the experience. In the Fedora solution, the wording of their first page is unwelcoming and unclear, in my view. But it might work if instead it's worded as an offer to protect me against phishers, adding to this the caveat that this requires a polling that could theoretically reveal the times when I'm online and offline. If it's a concretely explained offer to help me, with a concretely worded caveat, the feeling of warm welcome remains.

The Fedora text and the Agreement that it links to make a serious mistake, in that they don't mention anti-phishing. The wording is so vague that it's impossible for the user to understand what he's "agreeing" to. This renders the "agreement" legally void, and so its only effect is to cause feelings of uncertainty. Speak up! Explain clearly! Use concrete wordings! And ban the lawyers except for final vetting.

[Marco Boneff (neffscape)]

my 2 cents

1) If Mozilla's team doesn't want to be reasonable and discuss this with the ubuntu community, ubuntu should behave in the same way. treating Firefox as every other open source project included in the distro. Firefox wants an EULA we don't want? We can use Iceweazel/Icedove as debian does... and put the firefox package in the restricted repository. End of the story.

2) Of course I think having the official firefox in ubuntu is the best solution, we're similar projects and we have to be able to discuss and find solultions together in order to for excellence together. But we don't want an EULA to bother end users, and we don't want Firefox to be perceived as a "restricted" package in ubuntu. If we're speaking about corporate image, i think not being recognized as a "fully free" open source project from other leading open source projects could only affect firefox's image, not ubuntu's.

3) If ubuntu's community will adopt another browser instead of firefox, I strongly disagree using something different from IceWeazel (why we have to ruin firefox brand twice? abrowser is simply not a name). I would rather see an epiphany-based distro!

[Timothy Stebbing (tjstebbing-deactivatedaccount)]

On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 11:52 AM, Marco Boneff <email address hidden>wrote:

> my 2 cents
>
> 1) If Mozilla's team doesn't want to be reasonable and discuss this with
> the ubuntu community, ubuntu should behave in the same way. treating
> Firefox as every other open source project included in the distro.
> Firefox wants an EULA we don't want? We can use Iceweazel/Icedove as
> debian does... and put the firefox package in the restricted repository.
> End of the story.

<snip>

er.. its not about the 'Mozilla team' or the 'Ubuntu community', I think
thats been made plainly obvious.

As you probably know Moz Corp make bucket loads of $$ from the google search
bar (literally many millions each year), and it is in their interest to have
firefox used far and wide. With the upsurge in Ubuntu users (dell pushing it
to end users) there is no way in hell Moz corp want to see firefox drop from
#1 spot in the ubuntu suite of distros.

How does that effect the descission to keep it (with the EULA) in Ubuntu?
Well Canonical (another for profit company) as stated by Mark are in
negotiations with Mozilla behind closed doors, its fairly obvious that one
of the cards on the table is likley to be a revenue sharing model for
Canonical for the google dollars, thats if it's not been the case from day
one.

Checking the URL arguments passed to google from the search box in firefox
on hardy we see plainly:

&rls=com.ubuntu:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-a

Part of what that is about is google identifying who's bank account needs
topping up.

This is hardly a 'conspiracy theory', its good business for Mozilla and its
good business for Canonical, stop thinking this has anything to do with
community.

--
Timothy J Stebbing

[jackb_guppy (jackb-guppy)]

Great!

So you are saying UBUNTU is another get rich quick scheme with FOSS??

Well I guess it is time to move on again, since UBUNTU will not be listening to users, or their posted goals; only their pocket books.

[Timothy Stebbing (tjstebbing-deactivatedaccount)]

On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 1:03 PM, jackb_guppy <email address hidden> wrote:

> Great!
>
> So you are saying UBUNTU is another get rich quick scheme with FOSS??
>
> Well I guess it is time to move on again, since UBUNTU will not be
> listening to users, or their posted goals; only their pocket books.
>
>
>

That is a very black & white view, which skips over the fact that canonical
-is- a mostly FOSS company making a -stack- of new useful software.

Lets not throw the baby out with the bath water. I've installed iceweasel on
my machine for now and as soon as someone (hopefully epiphany) expose the
webkit 'web inspector' as a replacement for firebug I'll cut over to that.

I was a die hard debian user back in the day, and knew some of the people
working on the early alpha, I switched over as soon as there was something
available, why? because Ubuntu was the compromise between something
extremely true to open source and open community (debian), and something
practical.

The nature of Ubuntu is that it walks a line between the cathedral and the
bazaar to produce something of both worlds, which just works, is free, open
and is polished.

You may be far to the left of this idea or far to the right, and in either
case you might be offended by some of the choices Canonical makes. The rest
of us will enjoy the working product, and take or leave packages as we
please.

--
Timothy J Stebbing

[FredBezies (fredbezies-deactivatedaccount)]

Besides doing bad things on fly (as we say in France), this problem is half fixed :

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=443918

"Open-Source CVS version of FF forces me to accept proprietary, non-Open-Source EULA (license)"

It is closed as fixed, and as far as I can see, it is on both trunk and 3.0 branch.

For me, not using firefox branding is a mistake. Because average joe user who used firefox on Windows will be lost for not seeing it on Ubuntu.

Just my guess, of course.

Feel free to flame me if you disagree.

[Rafael Belmonte (eaglescreen)]

I suggest starting to use Iceweasel as like as Debian does.

[FredBezies (fredbezies-deactivatedaccount)]

Just guessing how many users will lose doing this ? About 10% ? 30% ?

For ubuntu's sake, don't you think that most users doesn't care about this EULA ? I'm an old ubuntu user (back to dapper era), but I think such "mind masturbating" answer won't help at all ubuntu market share.

Mozilla Firefox is well known name. IceWeasel is only known in Debian's world which look to me more and more free software fundamentalist.

Sorry if this word is "hard", but it is what it looks like to me.

[Remco (remco47)]

FredBezies,

Yeah, let's just do the math and take the road that leads to world domination! We need to beat Windows. Who cares about open source principles? Thats's just for people that don't want to pay for stuff, right?

[Dylan McCall (dylanmccall)]

Let's step away from the idealism. This isn't the place to discuss
that. (And on that topic, this isn't a discussion board. See mailing
list threads on ubuntu-devel-discuss, IRC, forums, etc. whatever
floats your boat).

This is fundamentally about user experience. What do we want users to see?

Personally, I do not care right now what legal issue is involved with
having an EULA in free software. (Last I checked, there is none; this
is Mozilla's software and they can do what they want with it. You can
do what you want with it: Use it in binary / source form or do not).
I don't want users to go through an EULA when they start Firefox
because it suggests a lack of cohesion and a lack of polish; it
paints Firefox as a part distinctly detached from the rest of Ubuntu.
The sad truth is that is indeed the case. (The solution is well known
to those who would enact it). However, we don't want users seeing this
any more than they have to. When a user downloads and installs Ubuntu,
he is told that Ubuntu can be freely used; basically he is given an
extremely simple license that seems totally fair. With all default
software and drivers shipped at the moment, that can be safely
assumed, and it is basically a given that anything added afterwards
(eg: universe, restricted and multiverse repos) is under its own
terms. Here Firefox's license popup is an exception amongst the
default set. Regardless of its content, that produces confusion for
the user: Why does Ubuntu (not Firefox, _Ubuntu_) now have two
different license agreements so close to its heart, the latter being
bleeding complicated and totally not laid back?

That is the end user experience I do not want. I don't care about the
slippery slope thing. If every application in default had its own
license agreement anyway, it may even start to make sense. We would
just have to drop the "all software in Ubuntu is..." thing and become
complicated like our friends in Redmond. One thing here stands out
like a sore thumb, however, and it would be profoundly upsetting if
the 'very simple terms' thing was dropped because of one little web
browser.

Some smart people have been drowned out amongst a storm of baaing
sheep. Those people say this EULA is only necessary with regards to
phishing protection. Can you guys clarify, please? I think we would
all appreciate it.

Everyone else, please restrain your immediate yells of rage. Points
are heard. Repeating them only drowns out what matters by making this
page slower and slower to load. Alas, this post may be too late, since
it is now impossible to know whether all the points HAVE been made
without spending a day studying the thread; just keeping up with this
issue in my email client has given me a headache. Regardless, it's a
safe assumption.

[Remco (remco47)]

Calling people sheep doesn't actually give much confidence that their points are being heard.

[FredBezies (fredbezies-deactivatedaccount)]

Remco : What about reality ? Are you living in a fancy world ? If you're so great, what about making YOUR OWN browser ?

If you can't stand this simple truth : no firefox = no more user, I cannot do anything for you anymore.

Dylan : you're awfully right. What are the worst sheep at least ?

Free Software zealots or MS fanboys ? I think I will not promote anymore ubuntu to people which wants to test or switch to linux.

Me either, I will leave Ubuntu because of fanatism.

Have a good day.

[Remco (remco47)]

I actually can make my own browser. Or my own operating system. But that's besides the point. I use Ubuntu because of the freedom. You apparently use it for other reasons, and that's ok, but I really value those freedoms.

You can continue promoting Ubuntu to people, because I'm sure a sensible solution will be found. That's what discussions like these are for, and that's what Ubuntu has done in the past.

[FredBezies (fredbezies-deactivatedaccount)]

I don't want to be rude, but let's stay realistic. Mozilla Firefox can live without ubuntu, but not the opposite. A part of Ubuntu success is to have Firefox and other great name of free software easily available.

Unlike xfree fork, mozilla firefox is more visible. You don't see X, you use it with gnome, kde, xfce or any other desktop environment or window manager.

It could be the worst thing that could happen to ubuntu to remove firefox because of a simple text.

Just my end user point of view. But maybe I will not be listened by free software zealot, the worst thing in free software world.

[Tim Post (tinkertim)]

On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 08:36 +0000, FredBezies wrote:
> Just my end user point of view. But maybe I will not be listened by free
> software zealot, the worst thing in free software world.

If it weren't for zealots there would be no free software. While yes, to
many, fanaticism over software is at best antiquated and (often) rather
silly. Sometimes that's correct. In 1984 it was necessary.

However, anyone promoting or creating free software has a place in this
community. We must be tolerant of others or nothing will ever be
accomplished.

That being said, I really would love to hear Mozilla's need to have the
users accept the EULA. Its trademark policy, if you live where the
trademark is valid you have already accepted it, similar to how you
accept that speeding is against the law.

If you don't live in one of those places, then it simply does not apply
to you .. no matter what the EULA has to say.

In fact, the EULA is not imposing any restrictions beyond the license of
the software regarding what you can or can not do with it. The software
is free, the trademark and logo remain restricted.

I just wonder, why even bother with the EULA at all??

[FredBezies (fredbezies-deactivatedaccount)]

Tim : OK.

But zealots are busting this bug. Let's them destroy ubuntu. They will cry when there will not be no more fresh users of Ubuntu.

Sometimes humans are so blind to average joe user point of view.

[JohnFlux (johnflux)]

2008/9/16 jackb_guppy <email address hidden>:
> Great!
>
> So you are saying UBUNTU is another get rich quick scheme with FOSS??

Jackb, that really is the silliest thing that I've ever heard. Do you
have any idea how much money Mark has _personally_ put into Ubuntu?
Claiming that he's trying to do this as a quick-get-rich scheme has
got to be the most ridiculous claim ever.

> Well I guess it is time to move on again, since UBUNTU will not be
> listening to users, or their posted goals; only their pocket books.

This matter is far from concluded. It's an extreme stretch to
conclude that 'ubuntu' is not listening. Mark himself has posted here
twice already showing that he has the same concerns as us.

[Prateek Karandikar (prateek.karandikar)]

Say I'm using a live CD, and I am not able to install new packages, perhaps because I don't have internet access. So I have to make do with whatever is installed by default. Is there a web browser installed by default that I can use if I don't agree to Mozilla's terms?

(You may ask why I'd need a web browser if I don't have internet access... I might want to use it to view files I have locally, or to use a local intranet, or whatever)

[Rthaduthd Anthnhkrc (nthnuekeu-deactivatedaccount)]

On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 11:11 AM, FredBezies <email address hidden> wrote:
> Tim : OK.
>
> But zealots are busting this bug. Let's them destroy ubuntu. They will
> cry when there will not be no more fresh users of Ubuntu.
>
> Sometimes humans are so blind to average joe user point of view.

The "zealots" are right; Joe Sixpack (and others!) comes to Ubuntu
because he's tired of all the nonsense from "that other platform" (bug
#1).

[Tim Post (tinkertim)]

On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 09:29 +0000, Lars Rune Nøstdal wrote:
> The "zealots" are right; Joe Sixpack (and others!) comes to Ubuntu
> because he's tired of all the nonsense from "that other platform" (bug
> #1).

EULA? We don't need no stinking EULA! Not to be with Ubuntu! Now take
off your pants ..

Sorry, someone had to do it. Disclamer: it was my other personality.

[click170 (click170)]

This doesn't belong in Ubuntu, and personally I'm deeply disappointed with Canonical for conceding to Mozilla's demands, but further I'm deeply disappointed with Mozilla for making them in the first place.

[Borsook (nikolaj-poczta)]

I think that the problem is not that EULA gets displayed, but that it is a part of an application that gets installed with Ubuntu without any choice for the user. This would not be so problematic is the installer allowed the user to choose which applications to install, this way (not to mention a zillion other benefits) a user who dislikes such things would just choose not to install Firefox.

[TGM (tommann.home)]

Could it not be an idea to remove the 'EULA box' and replace it with a link on Firefox's first-start page?

Something like "Use of this browser infers(?) agreement of the _EULA_ (link)"
Obviously this would have to be in plain sight on the start page, but would solve the problem without being too invasive.

As what was said before, the EULA is there to prevent people building malware into Firefox, and releasing it as if it's an original.

[Simon Huerlimann (huerlisi)]

I fully understand the 'branding' aspect raised by Mozilla.

But there's the 'Ubuntu' or even more general 'Linux' brand.

And "you'll never need to click away these strange legal texts, but just select, install and use" is one of the important features I tell friends when I'm advogating the 'Ubuntu' brand.

I hope this valuable selling point will not slowly fade away. Especially as there pop up other EULA like things you have to click away when installing some Java packages...

[Tim Post (tinkertim)]

On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 11:59 +0000, mrguitarmann wrote:
> Something like "Use of this browser infers(?) agreement of the _EULA_ (link)"
> Obviously this would have to be in plain sight on the start page, but would
> solve the problem without being too invasive.

Bad, bad and even more bad.. They need to explain their trademark
stance. I am an American living in the Philippines where I teach school
age students how to use Ubuntu, completely free of charge.

Either offer to ship a lawyer with every install, or get rid of the
goddamn EULA.

Mark, your welcome to chime in with any good reason why the EULA should
stay. Otherwise, tomorrow, I'm forking Ubuntu and using my fork to
teach.. Why? I must, the EULA exemplifies a language barrier and not one
student of mine will agree to something that they can not understand.

Mark, you have devoted your millions, I have devoted my life since 1995.
I make $0 (we likely share that in common) however you likely shower
with hot water, I do not.

Fix it, stand up, make them change it or consider your baby forked. Your
two responses here have been demeaning, condescending, pontificating
and without substance.

Fix it. Fix it now.

Cheers,
--Tim

[JohnFlux (johnflux)]

> Mark, your welcome to chime in with any good reason why the EULA should
> stay. Otherwise, tomorrow, I'm forking Ubuntu and using my fork to
> teach.. Why? I must, the EULA exemplifies a language barrier and not one
> student of mine will agree to something that they can not understand.

Come on people, calm down already. Everyone involved, both on the
Ubuntu and Mozilla side, have said that they will work on this.

[dancer58 (dancer581)]

> Come on people, calm down already. Everyone involved, both on the
> Ubuntu and Mozilla side, have said that they will work on this.
>
I agree everybody needs to calm down and see what the what is worked
out. This is getting out of hand.

I am a new user to Linux and have used dos, windows ect. I have seen all
kinds of Eula's and I as most window users just say yes and go on.

If and I say IF the problem is not resolved then I think Ubuntu should
install another browser but leave Firefox in repositories so anyone can
install it if they want.

Harold

[manzur (sl-solaris)]

I say something, EULA is not a big problem, if we want to have better programs for ubuntu, we have accept these things, there is nothing wrong with this, they only have the right to do so by the agreements they have with google. By God's name! it is just an agreement between companies! For this reason Firefox does not cease to be free, why do you alert?, Ubuntu should leave firefox as it's default Web browser, and I do not think that change it by an equal one, it is not going to have the same support or technology as the original, NEVER! something like that one called: Ice------ What do you think, do you prefer that one and you don't prefer FIREFOX???,

What have been all those efforts to make firefox the best, most famous and most used web browser in history?

Just because, They got an "EULA???¿¿¿¿"

Think about it again!

[manzur (sl-solaris)]

Could it not be an idea to remove the 'EULA box' and replace it with a link on Firefox's first-start page?

THIOS IS A PERFECT IDEA!!

[Tom Arnold (g0tt)]

FIXED:

Mozilla Re-Thinking Firefox EULA ( http://www.internetnews.com/software/article.php/3771696 )

[manzur (sl-solaris)]

OK, i was reading what you posted, i agree you to take firefox to multiverse repository OK!, But leave it by default! Please!

[Tres Finocchiaro (tres-finocchiaro)]

Launchpad is a great tool! Unfortunately I'm not seeing any more ideas to help fix this... Lets work together to fix this!

-------------------------------------------------------------

Mark Shuttleworth wrote on 2008-09-13:

"Please feel free to make constructive suggestions as to how we can meet Mozilla's requirements while improving the user experience. ...

...Your software freedoms are built on legal grounds, as are Mozilla's rights in the Firefox trademark. To act as though your rights are being infringed misses the point of free software by a mile."

-------------------------------------------------------------

-Tres

[manzur (sl-solaris)]

YEAH, Thanks Tom Arnold!

[Raphael Bosshard (raphael.bosshard)]

Let's switch to Iceweasle. From a technical standpoint Iceweasle and Firefox are identical, we can keep the relevant parts of the UA string and there won't be any problems.

Mozilla's trademark strategy has already caused trouble in the past. Let's try to avoid that an the future. By using Iceweasle, Mozilla's brands won't be a problem anymore.

Even if some people don't consider EULAs a problem; I do. There is no need for EULAs for Free Software products.

[Rafael Belmonte (eaglescreen)]

I really agree with Raphael Bosshard.

I think it is unacceptable an EULA in a Free Software system as Ubuntu, and
I think a package in main repository shouldn't have any EULA to accept.

I am supporter of using Iceweasel in place of Firefox, to avoid these
problems now and in the future, Iceweasel is Firefox with other name, it is
compatible with Firefox plugins and extensions, so i don't see problems with
this. And becouse Iceweasel already exists, i do not see the reason for make
another fork of Firefox by name problems as like as abrowser.

Someone asked: Do you prefer Ice--- what? or the famous FIREFOX?

My answer is: Yes, I prefer Iceweasel than Firefox.

See also: http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/13201/

2008/9/16 Raphael Bosshard <email address hidden>

> Let's switch to Iceweasle. From a technical standpoint Iceweasle and
> Firefox are identical, we can keep the relevant parts of the UA string
> and there won't be any problems.
>
> Mozilla's trademark strategy has already caused trouble in the past.
> Let's try to avoid that an the future. By using Iceweasle, Mozilla's
> brands won't be a problem anymore.
>
> Even if some people don't consider EULAs a problem; I do. There is no
> need for EULAs for Free Software products.
>
> --
> AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656
> You received this bug notification because you are a direct subscriber
> of the bug.
>

[Rory McCann (rorymcc)]

On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 11:59 +0000, mrguitarmann wrote:
> Something like "Use of this browser infers(?) agreement of the _EULA_ (link)"
> Obviously this would have to be in plain sight on the start page, but would
> solve the problem without being too invasive.

No, this is much worse. As soon as someone starts using Firefox they are told that just because they are using firefox they have agreed to a contract.

Most EULAs in the wild are examples of anti-user agreements that give the company too much power. This should not be what ubuntu is about. Ubuntu (and Linux) in general is supposed to be better, it's supposed to be a community of equals, a community where we all share together and create something wonderful.

Freedom 0 is "The freedom to use software for any purpose", if you need to have an end user licence agreement, then you don't have freedom 0.

[Vadim Peretokin (vperetokin)]

I don't think "Iceweasel" is a great name, and to begin with, "Firefox"
isn't either. That, and since all Iceweasel does is strip the Firefox
trademark - essentially stripping the credit of Mozilla that they worked on
the browser (and they *do* own the trademark, and *do* work on it. Just
their way of giving them credit is unacceptable).

I'm not sure why is Debian encouraging the concept of taking someone's work
and rebranding it. It strips away the credit of the original authors. And
then they complain about Ubuntu... hypocrisy.

[TGM (tommann.home)]

I revoke the link idea!

[Pitabred (ubuntu-pitabred)]

Wait a sec... reading more, this EULA is just about the extra services Mozilla provides, right? Not the entire browser itself? The dodgy site tracking or whatever it is? Why don't we just disable that by default, and then let people enable it if they agree to the EULA. Make a nice little wrapper for the first time Firefox is run that explains that, then gives people the choice to disable or enable it, and then it removes itself. That shouldn't be too hard, should it?

[Christopher Blizzard (blizzard-0xdeadbeef)]

There are some good comments in here. Some comments:

> [...] system could display own license dialog for example during install instead [ ... ]

This is what just about every other Linux distribution does. Ubuntu does not, instead relying on text buried on their web site that serves the same purpose. The use of Ubuntu is also defined by a license agreement, it's just harder to find. (Which also makes it harder to enforce down the road, but that's a whole separate issue.)

> If Mozilla's team doesn't want to be reasonable and discuss this with
the ubuntu community [... ]

Actually, we've been talking with people like Red Hat and Canonical for months and months. This is not a surprise to them and it was solved with Red Hat in an amicable way. I'm not entirely sure why Canonical had as much of a problem as they do.

> As you probably know Moz Corp make bucket loads of $$ from the google search bar (literally many millions each year), and it is in their interest to have firefox used far and wide. [...]

This is technically true, but I think that it it leaves people with the wrong impression. Mozilla is a non-profit entity and an open source project. We have contributions from thousands of people from all over the world. Our operations are funded by search revenue, largely from Google (but also from others.) But our motivations having nothing to do with those revenue numbers. Our primary motivation is to make sure that the web is accessible from everywhere and continues to grow.

Sustainability is a huge part of that, and that's why we have business + revenue relationships with various companies that drive revenue from the browser. This is why we've been able to invest + compete vs. other much larger vendors like Apple and Microsoft.

So while revenue is nice, it's not our main motive. We don't have shareholders and no one over here is getting super-rich as a result of the revenue.

> That is a very black & white view, which skips over the fact that canonical -is- a mostly FOSS company making a -stack- of new useful software. [...]

Well, kind of. Canonical doesn't invest very much. They largely do integration and very little upstream heavy lifting. Mark and Matt and others say this in public very often so it's not much of a secret.

I point this out because it's a very different model than what Mozilla does. We do invest - heavily. Those revenue numbers which are pointed to as a bad thing are one of main reasons why there's a top-tier browser available for Linux. No one else in Linux has the capacity to make that investment. (Mozilla and Canonical have about the same number of full time employees just to put things in perspective.)

So while Linux maintains a very small market share and doesn't contribute very much to Mozilla's overall market share or revenue numbers, we continue to maintain it on behalf of Linux users because we would love to see Linux be successful and find a path to a larger number of users.

[Julius Vitkauskas (julius-vitkauskas)]

I think we should compare and contrast Firefox and Iceweasel or IceCat EULA's and then talk about posibility to include or exclude firefox from default ubuntu install. As of now, i see only very few people in this discussion which does understand all differences between using branded and unbranded firefox version. It does not matter id it shows EULA or not in the separate window or in new browser tab or how fast you can accept it and close it, it matters how EULA affects you and what freedoms does it take from you.

And one more thing. EULA should be carefuly examined to avoid things like this:
One person in ubuntuforums has noticed that you are not allowed to install firefox if you disagree with EULA, but since it is installed by default, that means that by installing ubuntu you agree to firefox's EULA and if you don't want to, you can't install ubuntu.
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=919444&page=13 (post #122)

[Vadim Peretokin (vperetokin)]

I wonder how would Mozilla fare if all Linux developers stopped
contributing.

I'm pretty sure there's a decent number of them, and Firefox having a native
Linux version is more than "oh, we're just being nice to you, because that's
who we are".

[Keith Drummond (kd353)]

Would this make Firefox a 'restricted' package for future releases? As it would tend to go against the principles behind Ubuntu.

I would suggest that an alternative 'unrestricted' browser be used as default in the next release and then let the user make the jump to their prefered browser and its legal requirements. I suspect that once Chrome becomes available officially for Ubuntu/Linux it will have a EULA, so let FF live beside that in the repos.

I do not believe we have done anything to warrant this action by Mozilla and as a user for 2 years now I am very disappointed. It really does go against the overall Ubuntu community spirit.

[Dragonlord (dreamsareimmortal)]

Vadim Peretokin wrote 14 minutes ago:

> I don't think "Iceweasel" is a great name, and to begin with, "Firefox"
> isn't either. That, and since all Iceweasel does is strip the Firefox
> trademark - essentially stripping the credit of Mozilla that they worked on
> the browser (and they *do* own the trademark, and *do* work on it. Just
> their way of giving them credit is unacceptable).
>
> I'm not sure why is Debian encouraging the concept of taking someone's work
> and rebranding it. It strips away the credit of the original authors. And
> then they complain about Ubuntu... hypocrisy.

Are you sure you understand the principles of open source software? By releasing it under GPL, Mozilla say that they don't mind if someone takes their work and rebrands it, or else they would have released it as normal proprietary software, maybe given free as in beer but not as in freedom. And it is indeed the same thing that Ubuntu does with Debian, Canonical admits it, they take Debian Sid every six months, make some changes and then release it as Ubuntu. It is acceptable and it is desirable - if you don't like "stripping away the credit of the original authors", then there is plenty of proprietary software that insures just that. This kind of logic can NOT be transferred to GNU/Linux from users addicted to proprietary software and its tactics, and that's why this issue is such a big deal.

[Prateek Karandikar (prateek.karandikar)]

There are two different products here:

1) I don't know what to call this one. The source distributed by Mozilla, all the parts that are covered under GPL.
2) Mozilla Firefox.

Ubuntu has to make a choice between one of the two (or offer both, of course). The two are identical when it comes to functionality, though the licensing, name, and logo are different. The first one is free/open under various definitions, while the second one is not. Any modification requires permission from Mozilla.

As per Ubuntu's principles, shouldn't we stick with option 1? Only for the sake of branding, is it preferable to go with a non-free option?

[Prateek Karandikar (prateek.karandikar)]

Christopher Blizzard wrote:

"This is what just about every other Linux distribution does. Ubuntu does not, instead relying on text buried on their web site that serves the same purpose. The use of Ubuntu is also defined by a license agreement, it's just harder to find. (Which also makes it harder to enforce down the road, but that's a whole separate issue.)"

My impression is that most free licenses are *distribution* licenses, and we don't have to agree to them to *use* the software. Could someone more knowledgeable (than me) about these things please clarify? Is this true in case of Ubuntu? Do we actually have to agree to a license agreement to *use* Ubuntu? Christopher, could you please link to the agreement buried on their web site?

[Kristoffer Lundén (kristoffer-lunden)]

I found this blog post by Tom Callaway informative: http://spot.livejournal.com/299409.html

If his analysis is indeed correct, then Mozilla is really acting weird. Or, probably, normal for corporations/lawyers.

The best idea would be if they could cut out ALL the crap and then do what Fedora does with the rest (should be a few lines), methinks?

[FC Stegerman (flx)]

Here's my take on things and an attempt at some "constructive
suggestions":

1. This EULA is bad.

  Why? Because when I install Ubuntu, I know exactly what I'm
  getting: free software (I'm ignoring the unfortunate necessity of
  closed-source drivers for the moment). Even if this EULA doesn't
  change this fact (and I don't think it does), it causes confusion
  and legal issues. I'm not a lawyer, just well-educated (and
  somewhat of a control enthusiast), and I always read everything I
  sign or just "I agree" to. The great thing about Ubuntu is that
  (except for those pesky drivers), I know that everything installed
  by default and everything I get from main is free software. I never
  have to worry about licenses. I've read the Debian Free Software
  Guidelines, the GPLv2 and the MPLv1.1. I know what I'm getting when
  I install Ubuntu (although I run Debian myself, so please correct me
  if I overlooked a difference between Debian and Ubuntu here). This
  EULA, even if it doesn't impact my freedom, means I (or you/a
  lawyer) have to read it, understand it, and agree to it. I'm pretty
  sure I would agree to it, but I shouldn't have to. (And please
  don't tell me I could just click "I agree" blindly, as that is at
  best bad practice and at worst a potential legal minefield.)

2. This EULA is unnecessary.

  As far as I can tell, it's unnecessary. Most of it is covered by
  the license(s). The only thing that stands out is the privacy
  policy, but that could be done better, e.g. by having a
  non-intrusive message (like the "download completed" one) informing
  the user that phishing protection is currently disabled. One click
  would lead to a link to the privacy policy and a choice between "I
  read the privacy policy, enable", "Disable", and "Ask me later, keep
  disabled for now". IMHO, as it provides the necessities without the
  nagging and excessive legalese just to use Firefox (the privacy
  policy will have some of course), this would keep everyone happy
  (including the live CD users).

3. Iceweasel should be provided by Ubuntu as well.

  I hope Mozilla and Ubuntu can come to the agreement that the EULA is
  bad and unnecessary (which seems to be the current sentiment) and
  remove it. I do however agree with Debian that e.g. having non-free
  artwork is bad. Therefore those of us who don't want it should be
  able to install a non-branded version of Firefox, while leaving the
  regular Firefox the default choice. I understand why Mozilla is
  protective of its trademarks, but Debian had a very important (if
  not very pragmatic, but I'm not a pragmatist) as well. We (the
  Debian and Ubuntu developers and users) should have firefox
  (unbranded) + firefox-branding-iceweasel in main and
  firefox-branding-firefox in non-free/restricted (but installed by
  default (in Ubuntu) for pragmatic reasons and because Mozilla
  (still) deserves our support). This should make everyone happy for
  now.

  Ideally though, we should have something like an official "Mozilla
  Firefox" with the Firefox logo and an unofficial "Debian/Ubuntu/...
  Firefox" (or some other name that implies a connection while making
 ...

[Tax Man (taxman457f)]

I agree that non free restrictions (wherever the EULA is presented, in a popup or the first tab) are against the freedoms that Ubuntu stands for. If Mozilla insists on them then Firefox must be moved to restricted and a free browser (iceweasel or abrowser) should be the default. It is unacceptable to have a livecd or default install that is left without a browser if someone decides not to agree to an EULA.

I agree it is a bit disappointing that Mark and Canonical didn't keep us better informed and let us make a choice as to whether to accept these demands from Mozilla. It should have been clear the types of problems this change would cause and why. However Mark and others at Canonical have done so much to promote freedom that I give them a long leash for one-off mistakes. They've earned our respect.

But as others have said this is a character defining moment for Ubuntu. Either we stand for software freedom or we don't. This EULA with it's additional restrictions do represent a slippery slope. If we cave to Mozilla's encroachment on freedom, one day we'll look back on this as the chance we had to take a stand for software freedom and didn't.

[Alberto (albertop)]

I think that now Firefox doesn't respect clause #10 of the Open Source Definition (10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral. No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology or style of interface.).
Probably the best way is to collaborate with Debian to improve the integration of Iceweasel (Firefox rebranded) with the rest of the distribution.
In my humble opinion it isn't a great idea to start to distribute another Firefox clone (abrowser), but it's better to work with Debian one.
Mozilla Firefox can remain in the distribution, but in the multiverse section.

[cacoux (cacou661)]

I think the Mozilla foundation should be very cautious about this. The more protective they will be with their trademark, the more risk they have that distros switch to renamed versions, adding confusion among users, not to mention possible forks by developpers who feel tired about these issues. The name "Firefox" eventually represents what the programers and users made of it, and Mozilla should understand how to use their trademark in a smart way.

[nebajoth (nebajoth)]

Sadly, I feel compelled to bin my ragged Firefox t-shirt. I loved this browser. I wore that shirt every opportunity I got. Maybe I'll switch to Chromium? Not sure yet: looking at alternatives. The existence of this EULA breaches every principle of unencumbered use that made me switch from using Windows in the first place, a decade ago.

[Christopher Blizzard (blizzard-0xdeadbeef)]

> Are you sure you understand the principles of open source software? By
releasing it under GPL, Mozilla say that they don't mind if someone
takes their work and rebrands it, or else they would have released it as
normal proprietary software

Mozilla doesn't release Firefox under the GPL. We use the Mozilla Public License (MPL.) The MPL is a copyleft license in the spirit of the GPL but it has some important differences.

One of those differences is that the MPL has terms you must meet, but the license under which you may distribute the resulting binaries may be a license other than the MPL. In this sense, the MPL is more like the BSD license, but has a patch/source code release requirement at the file level.

[Prateek Karandikar (prateek.karandikar)]

Christopher Blizzard wrote:

"Mozilla doesn't release Firefox under the GPL."

As per http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/ ,

Core Mozilla project source code is licensed under a disjunctive tri-license giving you the choice of one of the three following sets of free software/open source licensing terms:

    * Mozilla Public License, version 1.1 or later
    * GNU General Public License, version 2.0 or later
    * GNU Lesser General Public License, version 2.1 or later

Am I missing something?

[Tom Arnold (g0tt)]

*hands out some chill pills* B)

First of all: Thank you Christopher Blizzard and Mitchell Baker for taking our concerns so seriously. ( Asa not so much )

I think if we get a Fedora like solution where Firefox just opens a web page like

http://fedoraproject.org/static/firefox/
( actually read the thing, people. It is _NOT AN EULA_ )

on first startup then most Ubuntu users can live with that I guess.

And according to

http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3771696/Mozilla+ReThinking+Firefox+EULA.htm

it might even get better.

So lets have some tea and watch what happens.

[Tom Arnold (g0tt)]

 @Prateek Karandikar:

Yes, you are.

Core Mozilla project source code != Firefox binaries.

[pj (pj-groklaw)]

Here's Mozilla's licensing page:

"Acceptable Licenses

   1.

      The following license (the "Mozilla tri-license") is acceptable in all circumstances except for those covered by point 4, below:
          * MPL/GPL/LGPL triple license, allowing use of the file under the terms of any one of:
                o The Mozilla Public License, version 1.1 or later (MPL)
                o The GNU General Public License, version 2 or later (GPL)
                o The GNU Lesser General Public License, version 2.1 or later (LGP...

3. The following licenses are acceptable only for Support Code in directories whose files are already under the license in question, as outlined later in this policy:

    * The Mozilla Public License, version 1.1 or later (MPL) alone
    * The Netscape Public License, version 1.1 or later (NPL) alone
    * MPL/GPL dual license, allowing use of the file under the terms of either of:
          o The Mozilla Public License, version 1.1 or later (MPL)
          o The GNU General Public License, version 2 or later (GPL) ...

3. All Product Code must be under either the tri-license or, for Third Party Product Code, a license compatible with all three sets of terms in the tri-license. The purpose of this rule is to make sure that users of our code can take and use the same code under any one of the three licenses; no group is disadvantaged."

http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/license-policy.html

[levelnext (lovenofear)]

DOWN WITH EULAs!!!!!!!

No EULA free firefox??? NO FIREFOX THEN THANKYOU

[Christopher Blizzard (blizzard-0xdeadbeef)]

Of the three licenses we choose to use the MPL for our distribution.

[Christopher Blizzard (blizzard-0xdeadbeef)]

I made two statements which were inappropriate here and I owe Mark and others an apology:

1. First, I accused Canonical of "having a problem" where others did not. Clearly it's more complex than this and I shouldn't have made this statement.

2. Second, I accused Canonical of "not investing." That sentence, when taken by itself, certainly isn't true. Canonical just invests in different places than Mozilla.

[FredBezies (fredbezies-deactivatedaccount)]

Christopher : don't waste your time. 80% of comment here are just firefox bashing.

IceWeasel ? What about cutting the throat of the ibex ? Chrome ? Do you want something worse than this EULA ?

Linus Torvalds had some good words on openbsd developers. It could be easily applied for some people who are screaming here.

Did they gave bug reports ? Helped users ? Translate things ? They should close their mouth and think with their brain, not with their guts.

If ubuntu drop firefox, I will drop ubuntu and tell anybody near me : don't use ubuntu, it is a bunch of blind zealots.

Felix and others "I want IceWeasel cause Firefox s*cks"... What about IceWeasel without firefox core behind it ?

I'm disgusted by all these people, these fanatics. Sorry, I have to go outside and puke.

[Ryan Braun (ryan-braun)]

+1 iceweasel
+1 moving firefox to restricted.

As a user coming from debian to ubuntu for my desktop boxes, I remember the debian firestorm when iceweasel was created. Everyone thought those crazy debian free software guys were up to their "debian" ways again. Well now it looks like they were the ones with the cajones to make a stand for the user.

I also would like to note (and believe me, it hurts me to say this) for a company such as Canonical who have ALWAYS had such a great feel for what the community wants, to get this decision so horribly wrong is confusing.

If firefox stays in main with an EULA it will be happily back to debian and iceweasel for me.

[Martin (martin615)]

"Of the three licenses we choose to use the MPL for our distribution."

But you are not the distributor in this case. Right?

[Przemek K. (azrael)]

I don't think that having a renamed Firefox derivative in Ubuntu would hurt us much. For most users, if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck. Same with Iceweasel, or whatever we call it. The browser's startpage could explain that this browser is based on Firefox and works just like Firefox. Browser's user agent string could be amended with "(based on Firefox)" to make sure that sites created by lame webmasters (using browser checks) would work just like in Firefox. See what's Flock doing, BTW.

[Christopher Blizzard (blizzard-0xdeadbeef)]

@FredBezies: Someone has to represent Mozilla in these matters. And there are some good and thoughtful comments that we're learning from in here. And a lot of yelling as well, but that's almost the case on passionate legal matters.

[Remco (remco47)]

@FredBezies: You're even worse than the free software zealots. The only thing I've read from you is abuse.

I think the Fedora situation is a good solution. It's not an EULA. It just states that two optional services (not part of the program) provided by Mozilla are subject to additional terms of use. One improvement I could see though, is that those two options are off by default. Then the notice could show how to explicitly enable them if you agree with Mozilla's terms of use.

It's still a problem that the actual Firefox binary is non-free software, but at least the short-term EULA problems can be solved this way.

[Earl Malmrose (earl)]

@Christopher Blizzard: You claimed "The use of Ubuntu is also defined by a license agreement, it's just harder to find." Can you please point out where this license agreement is? We are unaware of any agreement that is made by a person to *use* Ubuntu. If Mozilla is going to require users to agree to a EULA to use Firefox, then Firefox needs to move out of the Ubuntu "main" repository - it is not free software.

[SilverWave (silverwave)]

Mozilla Re-Thinking Firefox EULA
-----------------------------------------------
http://www.internetnews.com/software/article.php/3771696

The Good News:
"In a conversation with InternetNews.com, Mitchell Baker, Chairperson of Mozilla, admitted that Mozilla may not need both the EULA and open source license, with the EULA the likely casualty."

The Not so Good News:
That said she does feel that an agreement behind just having the source code licensed under an open source license is necessary.

"There is a need for something, something to explain the license I'm not sure I would call it a EULA because that has a meaning to many people of adding restrictions to software and we won't be doing that," Baker said. "We'll be having a license agreement much as Red Hat has a license agreement that says the software is available under the GPL and don't use our trademarks etcetera. So we'll have a license agreement but we won't think of it as a EULA."
-----------------------------------------------
SilverWave:
Hopefully a one-time tab opening on first use with this information will be sufficient?

Got to say though that this has been a PR blunder of epic proportions.
If you're Mozilla you really have to work to stop Ubuntu users loving you but they have managed it with this EULA demand...

And now we learn that all the months of negotiations and pressure put on the distro's to kneel before the might of the Corporation was... a mistake?

I would be laughing if I wasn't crying.

[furicle (furicle)]

As pointed out earlier in this thread, I found http://spot.livejournal.com/299409.html to be very informative.

It indicates the static html 'eula' that Fedora 9 uses is only temporary, and Mozilla is insisting on a complete EULA for Fedora 10.

If that article clearly and accurately represents the interaction between Mozilla and the Fedora board, then *I* think the only solution here to either start using Iceweasel or convince Mozilla to reverse their position (which doesn't sound very hopeful).

I hope everyone who is sincere about resolving this issue (and not just MAKING NOISE) reviews that article.

[FredBezies (fredbezies-deactivatedaccount)]

Christopher : sorry.

remco : "The only thing I've read from you is abuse."

Really. So sue me !

Sorry, I have to do some useful thing, besides unsuscribing to this pack of crying and shouting : helping translation. Unlike a lot of screamers there, I do work for free software, not only use it.

End Of Topic for me.

[Prateek Karandikar (prateek.karandikar)]

"And a lot of yelling as well, but that's almost the case on passionate legal matters."

I can't resist pointing out that http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/legal/eula/firefox-en.html too contains quite a bit of YELLING. :-)

---

A lot of the suggestions here, and the display-EULA-on-first-run all assume that the first time the software is run, it will be by the primary user. What if I ask someone else to install Ubuntu for me, and that someone else happens to open Firefox? What if on some system with Ubuntu pre-installed, someone at the shop starts the system in front of the customer, opens Firefox, and dismisses whatever comes up? What if I give my used computer to someone else? What about computers used by multiple people? Any do-something-on-first-run solution cannot ensure that some information will be communicated to all users.

[David D Lowe (flimm)]

I would like to let the leaders of Ubuntu and Mozilla know that I have every confidence in them, and I have no doubts that they will find a workable and acceptable solution to this problem. I would like to thank Mark Shuttleworth in particular for behaving in a way that made me proud to be a part of the Ubuntu movement.
May I suggest that controversial bugs like this one be linked to a forum thread next time, where debates and rants are much more appropriate?
(As I was typing this comment, I received the latest headline of slashdot: "Mozilla admits Firefox EULA is flawed". It seems like things are working out already! Thank you.)

[Jane Silber (silbs)]

I'd like to reassure everyone that we are productively and actively engaged with Mozilla, and that there is a strong desire from everyone involved to identify a positive, constructive solution that addresses the concerns raised in this bug report.

Also, please remember that this page is, in fact, a bug report and therefore isn't the most productive place to add "me too" comments. Back in comment 96 (https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/firefox-3.0/+bug/269656/comments/96 ), tacone created some links to Brainstorm items that can more effectively tally numbers of folks with different opinions. Voting those options up or down will turn your opinion into something that can be measured.

[Julien Berthold (bertholdj)]

It's time to change the name of firefox like Debian does for a while (iceweasel)...

Don't allow to be harassed by licenses owners....

EULA is for Micro$oft!!!!

FREE LINUX !!!!

[AphoxemaG (xeristian)]

Hold on a damn minute, I just realized something.

Why is Mozilla asking the users to agree to something that makes no difference whether they agree to it or not?

Why is this something that needs to be accepted or denied? This effects someone who never uses the browser as much as it effects someone who uses it religiously.

Why not JUST have a one time splash screen informing the user, for whatever reason they need to know more than they can already guess, that the name Firefox and the graphics for the UI and all that stuff is property of Mozilla?

There's existing laws (in at least the US) that DO NOT REQUIRE agreement from any end user to uphold.

[shafin (mahdee-jameel)]

Here is a complete post on how mozilla is planning to roll this out:
http://lockshot.wordpress.com/2008/09/15/firefox-eula-in-linux-distributions/

In short it says:
"It is essentially structured in two portions, one dealing with the code, and one dealing with the services. The first part describes the license applicable to the code itself. The second part contains terms that govern use of optional services. From a presentation perspective, we’re of the view that it’s good for users to easily be able to see the license terms associated with their software; however, this doesn’t mean it has to be a poor user experience. We have adopted an approach that tries to conform to the way the distributor presents license info. In cases where there is only a first run page presented, we’ve proposed language to inform the user that there is a license agreement, and they can click a link to view the terms. In other cases, like corporate builds where an IT administrator is already presented with EULA terms, we’ve asked distributors to include the terms with the terms that are already presented. "

They are asking for opinions, so if you have some constructive views. please go there and share. And please don't use that link for firefox bashing / Free software zealot bashing. I really believe they are going to take our view into account, and the last thing we need is to start a flame war to obscure the genuine opinions.
Here is the quote:
"Over the next few days, we’ll review any comments, and re-evaluate the draft language in light of the feedback. "

[Chris H. (ahmshaegar)]

FredBezies:

I understand your sentiments. Seeing this many knee-jerk reactions in here is disheartening, at best. You said you have unsubscribed to this bug report, so you may not see this, but when you said you would recommend people to NOT use Ubuntu due to this controversy, I think that also makes you a zealot. Just put things in perspective.

Anyway, I hope all sides involved can approach this in a calm and logical manner. Of course, I have my own opinions, but I have expressed them in a post somewhere up there. I think that's all I need to say about the EULA. I think the more important problem now is all the knee-jerk reactions. If there's any "bug" here, it's our collective handling of the issue.

Remember, when children misbehave and justify their actions by saying, "BUT S/HE DID IT, TOO!" we correct the, and tell them that is not a valid justification. I see a lot of that going on in here. We (as a whole) should not act like children.

My apologies to any children (meaning by age or if you consider yourself a child) who are actually participating, of course. It goes without saying that I am using the words "child" and "children" as a classifier, with no negative connotations.

Now, regarding the user experience. I like Fedora/Red Hat's solution to the issue, but we could improve it slightly. I noticed how that solution said if you did not want to use the anti-phishing features, you could disable them by going into the preferences. Rather than that, we could have some page saying welcome, then giving a link to the terms for the services, then saying if you do not agree, click this button. Clicking the button will disable the anti-phishing features, as opposed to making the user go to the preferences and unchecking some boxes.

[Ashley Stevens` (ashley-studio-1)]

Ubuntu needs to make it easier for end users to decide whether they want to use restricted non-free software. The choice should be given on installation and also afterwards too.

Firefox can't be in Main because it's unsupportable. It's unsupportable because it can't be patched or modified (unless totally re-branded). This problem will likely affect all Mozilla software too, since presumably Mozilla will want their EULA on all their products. Fine. Mozilla can't be in Main. Live with it. Move on.

Firefox and other Mozilla software should be included as Restricted, license-encumbered, binary only software (which in effect it is). But it should be much easier for the user to decide centrally on their policy, not on an application by application basis. So on install the user should choose free software only, or "include encumbered, unsupportable binary only software" and a sensible default set of it be installed (ie Firefox, Flash, Java etc). The user should also be able to easily change their policy on this after install and remove or install all such encumbered software in one operation. (They might start out being righteous to the free cause and then change their mind and decide they want Firefox, Thunderbird, Flash etc).

Then the only question to answer is what is the default browser installed if they want only free software? It seems that with the time available, IceWeasle might be the only pragmatic option for Intrepid, but I don't think this is a long term good solution. Long term, ie in Jaunty onwards a better alternative might be Epiphany with or without WebKit. But since Mozilla sprung this at the last minute, they can't really be upset with the use of IceWeasle (and other Ice family software [which I think ought to be weasle family but isn't]) just for Intrepid only.

[manzur (sl-solaris)]

What are you talking ALL about, EULA is been changed, with i have not any problem

[manzur (sl-solaris)]

What are you talking ALL about, EULA is been changed, we have not any problem

[Darryl Grennan (darryl-grennan)]

Does this mean no EULA?:

http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2008/09/16/firefox-without-eulas-update/
http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.planning/browse_thread/thread/120b0b6241b74538

[manzur (sl-solaris)]

yes that means that, and stop posting, we will have no EULA!!

[Sebastian Bengtsson (5ebastian)]

Clearly Fedora has found a solution which satisfies the practical
usage problems of the current ALLCAPS in-your-face EULA. However as I
understand it, Mozilla maintains that this is only a temporary
solution and that a EULA is necessary.
@Canonical: Keep on talking to Mozilla.

Both Tom Callaway's (http://spot.livejournal.com/299409.html) and Jeff
Spaleta's (http://jspaleta.livejournal.com/) has interesting points. I
suggest others to read those before engaging in the debate. The size
of this is really getting out of hand.

There may be a need for disclaiming liability for web services. But a
situation where every FLOSS application using an integrated
web-service has a EULA is clearly not a desirable solution to that
problem.

@Christopher Blizzard: I think Mozilla should put faith in the MPL, or
else update the MPL. However, a (very) quick browse of the MPL yields
"No one other than Netscape has the right to modify the terms
applicable to Covered Code created under this License." Does this mean
the MPL is effectively frozen in its current state? That probably
would mean trouble sooner or later.

About transparency: While I think the community should have been made
aware that talks was going on, I can see why Canonical did not want to
involve the entire community in discussions. Reading these posts makes
it painfully clear.

....
(Well, seems the situation is changing as we (I) speak.)

Hoping to be using Mozilla software for many more years.
/Sebastian Bengtsson

[manzur (sl-solaris)]

if mozilla insist with EULA, they just have to do a version for linux and one for windows and mac!

[begemot (oival)]

Gentleman!

Please take a look at "Ubuntu 8.04"'s file at /etc/firefox-3.0/pref/firefox.js
It's header says:
// This is the Debian specific preferences file for Mozilla Firefox

and it's final strings are:
// Prevent EULA dialog to popup on first run
pref("browser.EULA.override", true);

So what do we have, huh?!
It means, that we haven't seen EULA in Ubuntu's Firefox before only because of Debian and Canonical communities!
And what is going now is that Mozilla wants TO FORCE Canonical to EXCLUDE those to strings from Debian-specific Firefox config-file!

Now I am completely confident in my decision - switch to Iceweasel, not even matter how Canonical will respond on Mozilla's harassment.

[Prateek Karandikar (prateek.karandikar)]

Mark Shuttleworth wrote:

"I am resolutely opposed to calling an unbranded firefox "Ubuntu Browser" (because we didn't write it) and I'm
equally opposed to calling it "Iceweasel" (because our inability to agree with Mozilla is not also a rationale to belittle or demean them)."

Can the OS itself be called "Ubuntu"? Much of it isn't written by "Ubuntu" as such, but by the developers of Linux, Gnome, KDE, Debian, X.org, and so on. One could say that names like "OpenOffice" appear where they should in the UI, it's not called "Ubuntu Office Suite". Fine. But what about Debian? Is it acknowledged anywhere in the UI?

Another example is Compiz: it could have been called that, but it's called "Desktop Effects", and CompizConfig Settings Manager is called "Advanced Desktop Effects Settings".

I'm *not* complaining about this here, I'm sure this is ok under the GPL or whatever other free licenses are involved. The same goes for Firefox too: there is source code available under GPL. Go ahead and use it, and modify it if need be. In case of Compiz there was an option to call it Compiz. In case of Firefox, if Ubuntu uses the source code provided, and makes modifications, then Mozilla specifically does not want it to be called Firefox (am I right?). In this case using a different name is perfectly reasonable. Call it FreeFox, I'd say, and explain that the functionality is the same as Firefox, plus it's free!

Ubuntu seems reluctant to use the freedoms granted by the GPLed Firefox source code. Please don't bend over backwards to give special treatment to Mozilla.

Is Debian demeaning and belittling Mozilla by calling the browser Iceweasel?

[Christian Lachner (gladiac)]

I would like to see an iceweasel in ubuntu 8.10. Debian did and does a great job with this "fork" - Ubuntu would just have to use the debian packages and be happy. I don't get the point of abrowser.

[FredBezies (fredbezies-deactivatedaccount)]

To sum up : free software doesn't mean also : FREE TO CHOOSE a software with an EULA too ?

To comment 395 : The line you're talking about doesn't exist in the "official" source code.

Just look here :

http://mxr.mozilla.org/firefox/source/browser/app/profile/firefox.js

And for the highly hated EULA (which is not worse than GPL if you think with your brain, not your guts" :

http://bonsai.mozilla.org/cvsview2.cgi?diff_mode=context&whitespace_mode=show&file=firefox.js&branch=&root=/cvsroot&subdir=mozilla/browser/app/profile&command=DIFF_FRAMESET&rev1=1.334&rev2=1.335

Look at : https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=431713

I think a simple false could stop this """"trolling"""" bug

[begemot (oival)]

To comment 398:

"The line you're talking about doesn't exist in the "official" source code."
I know that, but options included in file "/etc/firefox-3.0/pref/firefox.js" are not illegal! This changes can make anyone during using it, so Mozilla's harassment of Canonical affecting not changing the source code of Firefox, but of USING it!
And if Mozilla wouldn't let us to using their "Free" or "Open" products exactly like WE wants, than Mozilla guys can print it's source code on paper in large fonts, braid it in a tubule and put it in their own asses!

[FredBezies (fredbezies-deactivatedaccount)]

to comment 399 :

1) Just look at mozilla options to build source code and look at the one applied in ubuntu. It's completely different and sometimes nonsense options.

Of course, I think that ubuntu mainteners know better than mozilla firefox coders how to build their source code.

2) "Mozilla's harassment of Canonical affecting not changing the source code of Firefox, but of USING it!"

What about ubuntu harasment on people who use buntu related names ?

3) "braid it in a tubule and put it in their own asses" : what I said about free software zealots ? I'm sick reading this.

I understand why there is no more free software users. With that kind of comment, you make them fly away.

To sum up : fed up with "bad firefox / good iceweasel". It is nonsense.

IN MY HUMBLE OPINION :

If ubuntu drops firefox => ubuntu could stop making distro. It could be a SUICIDE for grabbing new users.

That's all. If you cannot understand this, I have to think your brain is out of order.

[unimatrix9 (jochemscheelings)]

I would like this issue to be resolved, so maybe its an idea to show the licence agreement on the first html page
that you see at first start, you would lose your ubuntu first site page, but get to keep firefox,
an other tab could open for the ubuntu info page. If the mozilla foundation would agree?

It still is strange for an open source product to have licence's , what would happen of other pograms would do the same thing? Not good for the open source community...

Friendly greetings, from the netherlands

[Steve Langasek (vorlon)]

I understand the concerns about the appropriateness of EULAs in free software programs (in part because I share them), but I don't see that anything here warrants being a blocker for the alpha-6 milestone release, so I'm dropping the milestone value for this bug. In terms of the bug being on the release team's radar, I think that's accomplished - it seems all the world is aware of this bug at this point. But I think there are several arguments against treating this as a blocker to be resolved prior to alpha-6:

- The EULA in question does not, from what I understand, require you to agree with it before using the browser. Actually, thus far I've closed the tab without reading it or giving my assent to it (and therefore, without effecting any binding agreement...) So this is not, to my reading, a critical bug in the sense of non-free software having snuck into main, the primary impact of the bug is that the EULA is a nuisance. (Indeed, it appears that the EULA tab is opened up every time I resume a firefox session - I'm not sure whether this is intentional, or whether folks would agree this is a bug, and that the EULA is only meant to be shown to the user once?)
- Even if the EULA were to demand a click-through, the fact that the source license remains free means I would have the option to edit the source as a user to bypass the EULA entirely. Not that I'm arguing this is a good overall solution, of course; I think it would be bad for Ubuntu if users by and large felt they needed to route around Ubuntu's default browser for such a reason. But I think it does mitigate the urgency of this bug, especially in light of the unbranded abrowser package that has been made available in Ubuntu.
- There is not a clear consensus within the Ubuntu community that this is a bug, or if it is a bug, what the appropriate solution to the bug looks like, and it's not appropriate to block the milestone indefinitely while such a consensus develops.

I would also remind the many folks who have been commenting in this bug log that Ubuntu being a community distribution does not mean that Ubuntu development decisions are made by either popular vote or applause-o-meter, and that the launchpad bugs system is not a discussion forum. I'm confident that every effort is being made to ensure that the outcome here is acceptable to the Ubuntu community (and the larger Free Software community), but repeating points here that have been made previously is not going to have a substantial effect on bringing about your preferred outcome; indeed, I think the main impact it has is to make this bug log frighteningly long and hard to find information in, and cause a mail storm for the poor developers who are tasked with maintaining the firefox packages in Ubuntu. Please consider whether you're adding new content in this discussion, or if the second 400 bug comments are going to be repeats of the first 400.

[begemot (oival)]

to comment 400:

1. "What about ubuntu harasment on people who use buntu related names ?"
Canonical Ubuntu forbidding using it's NAME, but not it's source code and thats why there are so much *ubuntu-based distros! And many of them changing nothing but different options and installing additional packages right from Canonicals repository.

2. "If ubuntu drops firefox => ubuntu could stop making distro. It could be a SUICIDE for grabbing new users.
That's all. If you cannot understand this, I have to think your brain is out of order."
Oh really?! Don't you think that you put too much on Mozilla?
Let me remind you, that only in 2008 Mozilla's product (for it's >10 years history) got almost 30% portion of Internet-users. And talking that Firefox popularity-blow happens without Ubuntu's active participation is just totally not fairly!

So i would rather say, that Mozilla should worry, because it will lose it's main part of very active and motivated Firefox users!

[Martin Peacock (martin-inflection-technologies)]

 Steve Langasek wrote:

"I think the main impact it has is to make this bug log frighteningly long and hard to find information in, and cause a mail storm for the poor developers who are tasked with maintaining the firefox packages in Ubuntu."

100% agree. We should get out of here and take this somewhere else - there is an established forum thread:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=919444. I suggest everyone picks up and goes there.

But I do think this is an issue that needs thrashing out, and possibly has wider implications - at least for any 'branded' free software. I appreciate there are many many smarter folk than me have looked at this, but as far as I can see, the name 'firefox' part of the code tree that is published GPL, MPL, LGPL and therefore is free to use. quote GPL:

"You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it"

Which means the build process results in the creation of a binary 'firefox'. Art work aside, how can a menu item labelled 'firefox' be restricted?

[6205 (6205-reactivated-deactivatedaccount)]

Hey freetards! Let me know when this thread will be the longest flamewar in lusers history... I will export it into pdf and save for long, boring winter evenings :)

[taka (takaeshi)]

If it will happen I will change browser.

[Tim Post (tinkertim)]

On Wed, 2008-09-17 at 09:48 +0000, Laco Horváth wrote:
> Hey freetards! Let me know when this thread will be the longest flamewar
> in lusers history... I will export it into pdf and save for long, boring
> winter evenings :)

I think we now now who the "Linux Hater" is ;)

At least something interesting came of this.

BTW, Its not the longest .. just (apparently) the most popular as of
yet. There will be more!

Done with Ubuntu :)

Cheers,
--A Freetard

[Creak (romain-failliot)]

Sorry to add another comment to this already too long list... I'd just say two things.
- If I went to Ubuntu (after have been on Debian for some years), it's because it seems to respect the Free (as in Freedom) philosophy. This kind of agreement between Mozilla and Ubuntu is clearly against this philosophy.
- If Ubuntu accepts this from Mozilla, what prevents other projects to do the same. I clearly don't want to have to agree 50 EULAs before using my OS.

And why Apache, Gimp, Gnome, KDE and others don't need EULAs?

Sorry again.

[Tim Post (tinkertim)]

On Wed, 2008-09-17 at 12:13 +0000, Creak wrote:
> Sorry to add another comment to this already too long list... I'd just say two things.
> - If I went to Ubuntu (after have been on Debian for some years), it's because it
> seems to respect the Free (as in Freedom) philosophy. This kind of agreement between
> Mozilla and Ubuntu is clearly against this philosophy.
> - If Ubuntu accepts this from Mozilla, what prevents other projects to do the same.
> I clearly don't want to have to agree 50 EULAs before using my OS.
>
> And why Apache, Gimp, Gnome, KDE and others don't need EULAs?

And also Xen, which has a very strict trademark policy.. Citrix does
not require such nonsense,why should Mozilla?

Sorry folks, I'm done promoting Ubuntu. The lack of response from Ubuntu
tells all, barring a few emails from Mark asking us to STFU.

Redhat negotiated the first patent deal that is agreeable with GPL3,
what has Ubuntu done other than tweak the work of others (i.e Debian) ?

Good luck Mark..

Cheers,
--Tim

[Alexander Sack (asac)]

Hi all,

I just want to reemphasize what has been said in multiple places so far. (One is just a few posts above: https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/firefox-3.0/+bug/269656/comments/383).

That is: We _are_ working on this bug with _high_ priority . There were lots of valuable comments in this bug and around the net and be assured that everyone involved in this is thankful for all the productive comments, ideas and concerns made so far.

We will keep you updated on the progress .... and not posting me too posts here makes it just easier for everyone to spot the valuable content in here.

Thanks all and stay tuned!

[jackb_guppy (jackb-guppy)]

Steve Langasek wrote:

I understand the concerns about the appropriateness of EULAs in free software programs (in part because I share them), but I don't see that anything here warrants being a blocker for the alpha-6 milestone release, so I'm dropping the milestone value for this bug. In terms of the bug being on the release team's radar, I think that's accomplished - it seems all the world is aware of this bug at this point. But I think there are several arguments against treating this as a blocker to be resolved prior to alpha-6:

=====

Steve - The issue here is more than the EULA to my understanding. Part of the goal of the EULA was to notify the user of non-free web services embedded in FireFox. In non-free, I do not mean paid, but services with licenses other than GPL and even to MPL.

This was required to because firefox is shipped with these services on. Being "good" FOSS, they wanted the users to know this. But being "good" FOSS, they should of separated this service from firefox main, and made it downloadable as an add on offer, with all the licensing requirements there helping the user to understand.

With "encumbered" source (FOSS source using non-FOSS service) mixed into firefox, makes firefox not acceptable main tree. That is what many are saying over and over, move firefox out to multiverse, get an untangle version as the default.

[FrankyT (theroarenator)]

Drop FF. this is unacceptable ( literally :P ). Mozilla can be in the multiverse, but defn not default if they are going to act this way.

[JohnFlux (johnflux)]

Jackb,

  I think you're asking for a solution that is more than most people
here are asking. Simply not having an EULA and being able to disable
the services is sufficient. It is already easy to disable the
services (in the settings menu), so it's just case of having to agree
to the EULA.

John

[Mark Shuttleworth (sabdfl)]

Tim Post wrote:
> Sorry folks, I'm done promoting Ubuntu. The lack of response from Ubuntu
> tells all, barring a few emails from Mark asking us to STFU.
>
> Redhat negotiated the first patent deal that is agreeable with GPL3,
> what has Ubuntu done other than tweak the work of others (i.e Debian) ?
>
> Good luck Mark..
>

Tim, all of the distributions face this question with Mozilla, and
Ubuntu is directly involved in the design of a positive resolution. If
it were not for our active engagement with Mozilla, I assure you the
outcome would have been much less palatable even than this current state.

You suggest that my unwillingness to detail every conversation or
respond with my heart on my sleeve in public represents assent and
support for the current situation. That is not the case. We are in the
middle of a careful discussion with Mozilla, and I am not going to bring
delicate, confidential discussions into this public forum. I trust you
understand that would undermine our ability to get the best result for
our users and for the free software community at large.

I firmly believe this *will* be resolved in a constructive fashion, and
I believe it's our willingness to engage carefully and confidentially
with Mozilla, rather than hurl abuse from a distance, that will give us
the best chance of a positive outcome. I am not asking anybody to STFU.
I'm asking that people consider seriously the impact their words have on
the quality of conversation that we can have.

Resolutions to this sort of debate never come from abusive commentary.
They just NEVER do. Venting and insulting someone else may make you feel
immediately better, but so does relieving yourself on your own doorstep.
For good reason, I would ask you use the privy ;-) We have a code of
conduct in Ubuntu precisely because we know that many of these issues
touch on deeply held beliefs. Those discussions are hard enough as it is
- they become impossible when people publicly insult one another. Please
respect and follow the code of conduct here:

  http://www.ubuntu.com/community/conduct

If I was a Mozilla person reading this bug report, I could easily take
the position that the Ubuntu community is nasty, ill informed,
insulting, childish, and selfish. If that were true, then Ubuntu would
also not be relevant for very long, so I would have no incentive to
address their concerns. Careless words in this public forum will only
serve to reduce the seriousness with which Mozilla will take this matter.

Mark

[ketk (valen420)]

Mark, that speach is one of the most sensible things that i've read here.
Ideas have been proposed, now is the moment for negotiations.
Good luck, because your luck is our's.

[Tim Post (tinkertim)]

On Wed, 2008-09-17 at 14:35 +0000, Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
> Tim Post wrote:
> > Sorry folks, I'm done promoting Ubuntu. The lack of response from Ubuntu
> > tells all, barring a few emails from Mark asking us to STFU.
> >
> > Redhat negotiated the first patent deal that is agreeable with GPL3,
> > what has Ubuntu done other than tweak the work of others (i.e Debian) ?
> >
> > Good luck Mark..
> >
>
> Tim, all of the distributions face this question with Mozilla, and
> Ubuntu is directly involved in the design of a positive resolution. If
> it were not for our active engagement with Mozilla, I assure you the
> outcome would have been much less palatable even than this current state.

I suggest that the software in the main repository is either free, or it
is not. Free means:

0 - The freedom to run the program, for any purpose
1 - The freedom to study how the program works and adapt it to your
needs
2 - The freedom to redistribute copies so that you can help your
neighbor.
3 - The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to
the public so that the whole community benefits.

The EULA impedes freedom 3. By using Firefox, users of free software are
forced to give up freedom 3 by agreeing that their improvements are
subject to laws that might not apply to them. Furthermore, those who do
not speak English fluently may give up this right, which we have worked
since 1984 to guarantee, unwittingly.

Lets get past that point first.

> Resolutions to this sort of debate never come from abusive commentary.
> They just NEVER do. Venting and insulting someone else may make you feel
> immediately better, but so does relieving yourself on your own doorstep.
> For good reason, I would ask you use the privy ;-) We have a code of
> conduct in Ubuntu precisely because we know that many of these issues
> touch on deeply held beliefs. Those discussions are hard enough as it is
> - they become impossible when people publicly insult one another. Please
> respect and follow the code of conduct here:
>
> http://www.ubuntu.com/community/conduct

Respect it? I live it. I live in self imposed poverty in the poorest
country in south east Asia by choice. I teach people how to use free
software to better themselves and their income. I make $0 from this
endeavor. Until yesterday, Ubuntu was my model.

Aside from that, I really __do__ appreciate what your trying to do and
vehemently despise the fact that I am forced to become antagonistic.
However, please, do not question my conduct in the future. My points are
valid.

I can also be quoted as saying (on this very bug) "Lets see what
happens". Your apathy in communicating is not a reflection of my
integrity.

Friendly,
--Tim.

[Scott Kitterman (kitterman)]

I just read http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080917045510597 and I see Canonical/Ubuntu as being characterized as being on the wrong side of this issue and I have to agree. The one avoidable mistake that I think was made was to ship the version that required the click-through. We could have done as Fedora did an stay with an earlier version until this was resovled.

@Mark Shuttleworth: I completely understand that more good can be done in private in many cases, but what you are seeing here is a reaction to something that we (as Ubuntu Developers) could have avoided by not shipping a version that required the click-through while this was being worked out. If this discussion had been around "We aren't updating Firefox until we get this worked out with Mozilla corp" then I think people would feel very differently about Canonical/Ubuntu's role in this mess. I suspect it would have only strengthened your negotiating leverage and would have been respected by the community.

[Vadim Peretokin (vperetokin)]

Er... the EULA issue is almost solved:
http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2008/09/16/firefox-without-eulas-update/

[Remco (remco47)]

That blog post does make it seem as if a sensible solution has been found. I'll still take the wait and see approach, but I've got a good feeling about this.

There are three different issues here, I think: the source (copyright) license, the web services (contract) license, and the artwork (trademark) license.

There was never a problem with the source license. MPL, LGPL and GPL are three acceptable licenses.

I still feel that those non-free web services should be enabled explicitly by the user. That is Ubuntu's overall policy: be free by default, but don't make it difficult for a user to make some concessions.

And the matter of the trademarked artwork has not been addressed yet. Basically, the artwork hasn't been released under a free software license. So Mozilla has the right to block any revision that Ubuntu makes. That's not in the spirit of free software. And that essentially makes the Firefox binary non-free.

I see no easy solution to this last problem. Debian removed all trademarks because of this. The only other solution I can see is that Mozilla doesn't enforce their trademark. But that's just like asking a company to release their source code under a free software license. That very rarely works.

[unimatrix9 (jochemscheelings)]

I am sure this will be resolved , i have read the above link, and it seems that its going the right way,
There is no reason to give up on ubuntu this quick, lets keep our calm and find the right solution.
On the mozilla website there is an interesting read about modifications , wich partners can make,
that could be adressed if the eula popup would be persistant, i qoute from this url

http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/distribution-policy.html

Partner Opportunities

We do allow distribution partners to make some small number of modifications to Mozilla Firefox and Thunderbird and for those still to be considered "official" versions. The aim is to provide consistency and quality of user experience. For information about these partnership opportunities, please visit: http://www.mozilla.com/about/partnerships.html.

The modifacation that Ubuntu wants seems clear, since it does conflict with Ubuntu's strategy

All of those who can get the message across, i pray for your succes!

[Mark Shuttleworth (sabdfl)]

Tim Post wrote:
> I suggest that the software in the main repository is either free, or it
> is not. Free means:
>
> 0 - The freedom to run the program, for any purpose
> 1 - The freedom to study how the program works and adapt it to your
> needs
> 2 - The freedom to redistribute copies so that you can help your
> neighbor.
> 3 - The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to
> the public so that the whole community benefits.
>
> The EULA impedes freedom 3. By using Firefox, users of free software are
> forced to give up freedom 3 by agreeing that their improvements are
> subject to laws that might not apply to them. Furthermore, those who do
> not speak English fluently may give up this right, which we have worked
> since 1984 to guarantee, unwittingly.
>
> Lets get past that point first.
>
We will not include Firefox in main if it genuinely restricts your
ability to modify it. The legal analysis of the language Mozilla has
requested continues, and the language itself is now being reconsidered,
which was the desired result.

We don't consider the existence of trademark-related modification
constraints a restraint on one of the fundamental freedoms because you
can absolutely modify the software, as long as you remove the
trademarks. The GPLv3 even acknowledges this as a common and acceptable
practice.

> Your apathy in communicating is not a reflection of my
> integrity.
>

I'm not apathetic on this issue, I'm closely involved. That I haven't
taken a stronger public position reflects that I'm unwilling to turn a
private discussion into a public flamewar. Once we are certain we have a
final position from Mozilla, we can take a final decision within Ubuntu
as to whether we can support - and enjoy the benefits of - Firefox.

Mark

[Stéphane Marguet (stemp)]

Fixed ?
http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2008/09/16/firefox-without-eulas-update/

[Mark Shuttleworth (sabdfl)]

Scott Kitterman wrote:
> I just read http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080917045510597
> and I see Canonical/Ubuntu as being characterized as being on the wrong
> side of this issue and I have to agree. The one avoidable mistake that
> I think was made was to ship the version that required the click-
> through. We could have done as Fedora did an stay with an earlier
> version until this was resovled.
>
No, Scott, we absolutely could not ship what Fedora shipped, and I hope
you will trust me that that is the case. We also would not have this
current conversation if we had not chosen to ship what was requested,
immediately.

Mark

[click170 (click170)]

I propose that Firefox is dropped from the Ubuntu repo's, or at least from the main ones, in favor of a DFSG compliant browser; like Iceweasel. It's the same thing but without the branding, which is precisely what Mozilla is crying about.

I won't be running Firefox in the future if it means a EULA (or ^any^ variation thereof).

[Scott Kitterman (kitterman)]

On Wednesday 17 September 2008 14:06, Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
> No, Scott, we absolutely could not ship what Fedora shipped, and I hope
> you will trust me that that is the case. We also would not have this
> current conversation if we had not chosen to ship what was requested,
> immediately.

If you say that's the case, then of course I accept that. You have
information I don't. Were we required by Mozilla to update the non-EULA
version we had? If Mozilla has authority to require us to change what
they've already agreed we could ship, that's additionally troubling to me.

The fact that I'm sitting here as an Ubuntu core-dev with no idea about what
can and can't be done with this package is emblematic of why these kinds of
packages are problematic in Main/Universe.

I understand why it was decided to keep Firefox official branding in Ubuntu.
There is a limit beyond which we should not go, however. I do hope your
desire to keep the advantages of having the Firefox brand in Ubuntu don't
cause you to go past that point in accomodating them.

Scott K

[Przemek K. (azrael)]

People which are screaming here forgot about one very important thing.
***This EULA is not distributed in any stable version of Ubuntu!***
It's only in the development version, and (I hope) only for a limited time. It doesn't affect ordinary users yet.
Comments like "Until yesterday, Ubuntu was my model." are just plain nasty flamewar. The EULA won't magically get into cds that you have already got. You can still use older, still supported versions of Ubuntu which don't contain this EULA.
Don't put a cross on Ubuntu without seeing the EULA in the stable version. It's not finished yet, so don't put such overblown statements here.

[Usama Akkad (damascene)]

Mark: Thanks very much for your effort and we all know you do great
things to free software.
Thanks and I hope some one close this bug. every thing was said.
We should show some gratitude for people who does help free software
even if Mozilla asked for EULA< that doesn't mean that they haven't done
any good ever. and doesn't allow as to be so ungrateful.

Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
> Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> I just read http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080917045510597
>> and I see Canonical/Ubuntu as being characterized as being on the wrong
>> side of this issue and I have to agree. The one avoidable mistake that
>> I think was made was to ship the version that required the click-
>> through. We could have done as Fedora did an stay with an earlier
>> version until this was resovled.
>>
> No, Scott, we absolutely could not ship what Fedora shipped, and I hope
> you will trust me that that is the case. We also would not have this
> current conversation if we had not chosen to ship what was requested,
> immediately.
>
> Mark
>

[Sean Hodges (seanhodges)]

Hmm.

Perhaps Apache should adopt the EULA idea. Each time you visit a web page powered by Apache HTTP server for the first time, you get a compulsory EULA pop-up before the web site appears...

Perhaps you should get an EULA appear for every media player, office application, game and development tool you decide to play with. And perhaps they should appear every time you use the application, in case you decide to hack on one later on and didn't bother to read the EULA first time?

What about the Linux kernel? and all the other low-level programs that run your computer? Don't they deserve to pop-up EULA's on first boot in case Dell tries to slap their name all over the README files?

This was Mozilla's response to Chrome? ergh.

[Tom Arnold (g0tt)]

Really fixed now?

Mock-Ups Available for Notices (previously was EULA)
http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2008/09/17/mock-ups-available-for-notices-previously-was-eula/

Licensing Proposal
http://lockshot.wordpress.com/2008/09/17/licensing-proposal/

2. Licensing Proposal
http://lockshot.wordpress.com/2008/09/17/licensing-proposal-notice-page-screen-shot/

Please everyone have a good hard look at it before posting ;)

[b3n87 (benhellyer)]

http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2008/09/16/firefox-without-eulas-update/

fixed?

[Alan Lord (theopensourcerer)]

These mock-ups are infinitely better than where we were just a couple of days ago. So for that I am pleased and would be fairly comfortable with these proposals as they stand.

I do have some preferences and still a concern or two however:

1. Of the two first-page images the top one is better as there is no "button" on the toolbar that seems to *need* to be clicked.

2. I would really appreciate it if Ubuntu/Canonical (if Mozilla can't or wont) could distribute Firefox with the Website Services disabled by default (we are running Linux after all so their benefit is a somewhat moot point) so that the need for the 'user agreement' becomes a requirement only *after* the user has made a concious choice to turn on these services.

But, as I said. They look much better and don't seem to require any affirmative action by the user. Whether Firefox is "Free Software" I am really not sure. I don't think it is with this agreement still seemingly required. So maybe it needs to go into multiverse anyway.

I'll leave that to people with far greater knowledge of the subject than I.

[aschuring (aelschuring)]

I am impressed with the solution that has sprung forward, even if it is only a mockup. I already commented on them, we'll have to wait how the final version pans out. I'm wondering how much Canonical had a hand in that mockup. I guess we'll never know :). Either way, it looks like the Mozilla/Canonical collaboration is a succesful one. And I'd like to think that we (the community) did have a hand in the end result.

I'd like to thank you, Mark (and other Ubuntu and Mozilla officials as well) for still attending this bug in spite of the low signal-to-noise ratio.

With regards to the question by lord_alan about shipping Firefox with web services switched off by default: as a system admin you can do this yourself via /etc/firefox-3.0/pref/firefox.js:
pref("browser.safebrowsing.enabled", false);
pref("browser.safebrowsing.malware.enabled", false);

Considering how things are now with the services agreement, I don't think it will be necessary to ship with them turned off.

[Chip Bennett (chipbennett)]

@aschuring:

"Considering how things are now with the services agreement, I don't think it will be necessary to ship with them turned off."

Caveat: I am still relatively new (slightly over a year) to Ubuntu, Linux, and FOSS - so please forgive any ignorance and do not take any of my comments or questions to be anything more than sincere.

I am quite happy with what Mozilla has done to revise both the content and presentation of information they believe critical to present to end users. However, I am still trying to grasp some things.

As I understand Ubuntu's operating principles, Ubuntu is promised always to be free software. Only packages that meet the standard of "free software" can reside in Main and be fully, officially supported by Ubuntu. (Am I on track so far?)

Now, we have Firefox, an erstwhile "free software" application, that has begun bundling non-free, proprietary components with their open-sourced, free software. Mozilla has done an admirable job now in differentiating between end users' rights of unencumbered use of Firefox and the use of the non-free components (services), that require an end-user agreement in order to use.

So, now we have Firefox, by default built/bundled with non-free components (that require an end-user license agreement - by whatever name) that currently resides in Main for Intrepid alpha. That is, non-free software now resides in Main.

I don't see how this situation is not problematic for Ubuntu.

It would seem to me that this situation presents only two acceptable resolutions:

1) Mozilla allows Linux distributions to ship Firefox with the non-free services disabled by default, with users only required to accept an EULA for those services if they choose to enable them - and allowing them to do so without revoking their Firefox-branding rights,

or

2) Ubuntu moves branded Firefox to Multiverse/Restricted, as non-free software cannot reside in Main.

Any other resolution would be in violation of Canonical's operating principles with respect to Ubuntu, and would be considered to be an egregious betrayal of trust by much of the Ubuntu community.

Again, with the changes Mozilla has already made, if Ubuntu can be allowed to disable the non-free services by default and still use the Firefox branding, then I think this issue will be completely, entirely resolved.

And, again, I'm still learning here; I welcome constructive criticism if any of my above comments are off-base.

[Ryan Braun (ryan-braun)]

Great post Chip, I don't think anyone has been advocating the outright removal of Firefox from ubuntu. I don't even consider myself to be much of a free software zealot, but I do start thinking of ideals when issues like this rear their ugly heads.

Clearly (IMO, and take it for whatever it's worth) I think that software that makes you click through a EULA has no place in a free software repo. I have ZERO issues with firefox being in another repo other then main. I don't think it would be in anyone's interest to go firefox free. But I think the simple fix here would be to move FF to multi, and have a non branded version in main. I mean, how many people choose NOT to use non-free repos anyway? But moving FF out of main would be the fairest way of moving forward. The purists would be happy, and those who don't care either way ( and that is clearly their right, so people from either side quit yelling at each other), would not even notice the transition. Those who DO care ( and again it is their right so stop yelling at those people as we owe WAY TOO MUCH to the "zealots") could be happy by choosing to use only free software.

[Creak (romain-failliot)]

The solutions presented here by Mozilla seems definitely better!

I might have missed something important, so please correct me if I'm wrong. I wonder about the "non-free" status of the Firefox binary. As everyone said, considering the Ubuntu code, only free binaries have the right to be in the main repository. So what for Firefox?

I also wonder about the motivations of Mozilla to build a closed binary? Their web services really can't be opened? If I understood well, the AGPL licence is maid to ensure web services' openness.

I don't know for you, but all this "non-free" stuff about Firefox strongly reminds me the XFree86 project that didn't want to hear the opinion of those "zealots". It ended, as you know it, with a far better project in many ways: Xorg.

[Mark Shuttleworth (sabdfl)]

lord_alan wrote:
> 2. I would really appreciate it if Ubuntu/Canonical (if Mozilla can't or
> wont) could distribute Firefox with the Website Services disabled by
> default (we are running Linux after all so their benefit is a somewhat
> moot point) so that the need for the 'user agreement' becomes a
> requirement only *after* the user has made a concious choice to turn on
> these services.
>
We could do this, yes, but I think that would be a significant loss. The
services are not anti-virus (and hence of less value on Linux), they are
anti-phishing. Unfortunately, the phishing virus affects the human brain
and not the OS :-/ so I think launching Firefox on Linux without the
anti-phishing service would be significantly less safe than IE on
Windows with their anti-phishing service.

We have been driving hard to get a good result here (and publishing the
EULA-version was part of that driving process) that specifically sets a
good precedent for integrated network services. Such services will be a
feature of the future of software, and even where that software is
FLOSS, we want to be able to take advantage of the available set of
services.

Services, unlike software, will always come with terms of use. There are
terms of use involved every time you use Google, Ebay, Yahoo, Wikipedia,
Sourceforge, and like it or not your use of the service usually
constitutes assent to those terms.

We wanted here to establish some key ideas:

 - that the presentation of terms should be non-blocking. You should not
have to "click to accept" (we accomplished that in the initial version)
 - that the terms should be presented only when the service is being
invoked (the latest mockups are close to that)
 - that the terms should not be intrusive on your use of space (the
latest mockups are, in my view, acceptable in that regard)

In addition, there is going to be a lot of discussion about what sorts
of terms are acceptable to people who are aware to issues of
intellectual property, data protection and the value of the digital
commons. I.e. - you and me. We don't yet have a view on that, there is
no "GPL for Services" but we expect one to emerge over the next few
years, and this work by Mozilla is an important first step.

I should say that Mozilla has been very responsive once this issue was
clearly on the public table, and they are clearly committed to the
values that we hold dear. Organisations always have a diversity of
thinking on a subject, and it's important to see what the leaders do
once something is firmly on their agenda. In this case, Mozilla's
leaders have been quick to stand for the things that most people here
care about. As someone said, this EULA hasn't landed in a stable
release, this has been part of the development process and we expect to
have a good position in place before Intrepid's RC.

Mark

[Chip Bennett (chipbennett)]

@Mark Shuttleworth

"We could [disable the Website Services by default], yes, but I think that would be a significant loss. The
services are not anti-virus (and hence of less value on Linux), they are
anti-phishing. Unfortunately, the phishing virus affects the human brain
and not the OS :-/ so I think launching Firefox on Linux without the
anti-phishing service would be significantly less safe than IE on
Windows with their anti-phishing service."

Duly noted; the anti-phishing services are valuable/beneficial to Firefox users among the Ubuntu community.

"We have been driving hard to get a good result here (and publishing the
EULA-version was part of that driving process) that specifically sets a
good precedent for integrated network services. Such services will be a
feature of the future of software, and even where that software is
FLOSS, we want to be able to take advantage of the available set of
services."

Agreed; the efforts thus far have produced valuable results with respect to precedent-setting.

"Services, unlike software, will always come with terms of use. There are
terms of use involved every time you use Google, Ebay, Yahoo, Wikipedia,
Sourceforge, and like it or not your use of the service usually
constitutes assent to those terms."

Here is where our perspectives begin to differ.

Services - AKA "Software Servies", AKA "Software as a Service (Saas)" - are nothing more than software applications that are installed on a remote server rather than the local machine. As software applications, they are either open- or closed-source. They are either free or non-free.

Anti-phishing services bundled/built with Firefox are fundamentally different from the various SaaS applications to which you equated the anti-phishing services.

Use of Google services (et al) requires the end user's explicit agreement to use the services, by means of using the browser to access those services and explicitly accepting the terms of their use (through account creation/login/use).

Use of Mozilla's Firefox anti-phishing services, on the other hand, requires no explicit agreement to use the services; end-user agreement is implied by leaving the services enabled.

This difference is critical. I do not imply my consent to use Google services (et al) simply by using the browser in the default configuration; on the other hand, if Mozilla's anti-phishing services are enabled by default, I *do* imply my consent to them simply by using the browser in the default configuration.

Thus, as I understand it, in Firefox's default configuration, we now have end-users' implicit agreement to end-use restriction with respect to the non-free services bundled/built with Firefox. That means that Firefox, in its default configuration, is encumbered - and therefore, non-free - software. How does this circumstance *not* violate the requirements for packages in Main?

Wouldn't a *far* better course of action be to package Firefox in Ubuntu with the non-free services disabled, and then present the user (either through Mozilla's notice screens, or else through an Ubuntu customization) with information regarding those services, what they are, why they are disabled by default, how ...

[Mark Shuttleworth (sabdfl)]

Chip Bennett wrote:
> Use of Google services (et al) requires the end user's explicit
> agreement to use the services, by means of using the browser to access
> those services and explicitly accepting the terms of their use (through
> account creation/login/use).
>
Have you tried the Gnome "deskbar applet". I recommend it. You can
search Yahoo and Google directly from the panel, without ever touch a
web browser.

So, you never "use the browser to access those services and explicitly
accept the terms of their use through account creation/login/use".

You just use it. Actually, I'm simplifying, because I think Google does
require you to get an account, and that implies assent. But Yahoo
doesn't. And most services will not, either.

Hence the issue we face.

Mark

[Chip Bennett (chipbennett)]

"Have you tried the Gnome "deskbar applet". I recommend it. You can
search Yahoo and Google directly from the panel, without ever touch a
web browser."

I use Kubuntu, thus KDE, so, no, I've not tried the Gnome deskbar applet.

That said, the use of Yahoo and/or Google search services do not require an end-user license agreement.

"So, you never "use the browser to access those services and explicitly
accept the terms of their use through account creation/login/use"."

Those services do not require explicit acceptance of terms of use; terms of use exist, but they are implicit.

"You just use it. Actually, I'm simplifying, because I think Google does
require you to get an account, and that implies assent. But Yahoo
doesn't. And most services will not, either."

But those services aren't encumbered, and don't require assent. The Firefox anti-phishing services explicitly state that if the user does not agree to the terms of use, that the services should be disabled.

Perhaps the Gnome Deskbar Applet is a good analogy; however, I'm not convinced. The primary differences I see are:

1) Gnome Deskbar Applet can be used to request information from/use of non-free services (Google et al); it does not install non-free service functionality locally (in the same way that using Firefox to navigate to Google is different from having anti-phishing services built into Firefox). The Firefox anti-phishing service is built-in to Firefox, and that functionality is installed and enabled by default; and,

2) Lack of agreement with the terms of use of Google's services via Gnome Deskbar Applet does not require uninstallation/disabling of anything in the applet itself; rather, it simply requires not making use of the Google (et al) backend. Lack of agreement with the terms of use of Firefox anti-phishing services requires disabling of the built-in services.

"Hence the issue we face."

I certainly acknowledge that this issue is touchy and rather unprecedented.

I'm doing my best to be a voice of reason in my responses here, given the preponderance of non-edifying responses. I'm neither a Firefox fan boy nor a free-software purist. I'm just a Windows refuge trying to contribute to this community to which I have belonged for but a year. I can't say how much I appreciate that I - in reality, a "nobody" - can discuss, suggest, get responses on this issue from such high levels at both Canonical and Mozilla.

[Dave Morley (raceprouk)]

If Mozilla goes with what's linked to at (http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2008/09/17/mock-ups-available-for-notices-previously-was-eula/), I think that's absolutely fine.

I expect to see Firefox in Main in Intrepid!

[Dragonlord (dreamsareimmortal)]

Mark, I do think that Chip Bennett has a strong point. In this spirit, the next step would be mp3 codecs already installed, with a notification that you can uninstall them if you don't agree with the terms of use. After that, maybe full proprietary pieces of software, again, with the option to remove them. An Ubuntu installation should come with the default configuration having only free software and services enabled. If the user wants, they can enable/install non-free stuff afterwards. I understand that these services have to do with google, and are probably a necessity for Mozilla (and subsequently Canonical?) to get funds from Google, but as others have said, it's a character moment. What if Microsoft came and made you an offer to include MSN messenger with Ubuntu for a good amount of money, with a notification the first time you run it that if you don't agree to the terms of use you must uninstall it. It's not the same, but it's a similar situation; speaking of brand recognition, MSN Live! messenger is ten times bigger than Mozilla Firefox. It would be good for the new users to find such a familiar program installed with Ubuntu, and there would be the option to remove it, but is this your vision for the biggest GNU/Linux distribution? Once you accept the Firefox situation, where will it stop and by what logic? Sure, firefox's code is open source and MSN's isn't, but you're not allowed to change firefox's code one byte without changing its name and logo, so one could argue if it's such a huge difference on a practical level. And yes, we're talking about a part of firefox now, whereas with MSN it would be the whole program, but it's a thin line. Please, let's not get into the discussion whether it's a good example or why it is different, I know it's different, but at the same time there are significant similarities and that's where I'm focusing. Software is either completely free, or it's non-free. The right thing to do is have these services disabled, and then, when you first open Firefox, show a simple text saying why browsing will not be same from phishing without those services enabled, with a link to the user terms you have to accept and a button that will do it for you on the fly, not confusing users with Edit>Preferences etc. I bet you that almost all users will enable them for security anyway, so any financial losses will not be significant, and it's the only way to keep the Ubuntu promise and be respectful to the community. Mozilla seem to have made a huge step in the right direction and what I'm proposing isn't that far from their solution, but it's significant to take that extra step so that ubuntu stays true to its ideas and goals. I hope it works out.

[Andruk (andruk)]

I would have to respectfully disagree with Dragonlord; i believe that there is a large continuum of the freedom of software, akin to many things. Mozilla is a lot freer than many other web browsers out there, and they deserve props for that.

However, forcing what amounts to a EULA on the end users is simply not a good idea, as the vast majority of them have no intention of changing a single byte of code of Firefox and distributing it. Therefore, as posted by Dave Morley, I think a simple message bar would suffice, as it gives Mozilla a legal leg to stand on without annoying end users.

I can't say that I've ever disagreed with Mr. Shuttleworth's decisions, in fact, he has come up with compromises that I did not. That being said, I don't consider myself a Shuttleworth fan aside from the fact that his previous leadership and business insight leads me to believe that he will make the best commercial decision for Canonical - to not annoy end users. I'm sure there will be a compromise, and all (most) parties will be content. Mozilla seems to have been a little overzealous with their defense of their logo (see: Debian IceWeasel browser), and seem to be backing down over the outcry. In my mind, that is exactly what a beta release is for, to flesh out bugs, mistakes, and mis-features before they get released into the wild.

The journey to solve bug #1 continues with the small step of removing an intrusive and largely irrelevant EULA.

[Chip Bennett (chipbennett)]

"I would have to respectfully disagree with Dragonlord; i believe that there is a large continuum of the freedom of software, akin to many things. Mozilla is a lot freer than many other web browsers out there, and they deserve props for that."

Probably, most (at least those who can see the issue rationally) would not disagree. I think Mozilla's response to this situation confirms that they are sensitive to the needs/ethos of the free-software community - even if some of their actions along the way might be construed as mis-steps.

"However, forcing what amounts to a EULA on the end users is simply not a good idea, as the vast majority of them have no intention of changing a single byte of code of Firefox and distributing it. Therefore, as posted by Dave Morley, I think a simple message bar would suffice, as it gives Mozilla a legal leg to stand on without annoying end users."

For me at least, the issue has moved beyond the blanket EULA in Firefox. It seems that the entire matter derives from the non-free services (e.g. anti-phishing) built into Firefox. (The trademark issue appears to be, at best, orthogonal, in that the impression existed that if Ubuntu repackaged Firefox with the EULA disabled, Mozilla would revoke Firefox branding rights - I don't know if that impression coincided with reality.)
It appears that Mozilla's intent with the EULA revolved around those non-free services - especially given that any explicit end-user assent (and at this point, it is actually implicit assent) is clearly limited to use of those services.

Thus, the issue for Ubuntu now is: what does it mean to have non-free services bundled by default in a free software application?

Asked another way, how do we compare/contrast non-free services bundled in Firefox with using Firefox to access non-free Yahoo services (mail, etc.), with using a Gnome Deskbar Applet backend to non-free Google services, or with installing non-free MP3 codecs for *insert music player*?

What is acceptable with respect to the free-software requirements for packages in the Main repository?

My personal inclination at this point is to err on the conservative side - to package Firefox in Ubuntu with the non-free services disabled, and to notify the user regarding what the services are, why they are disabled by default, what it means to enable them, and how to do so.

After all, the Ubuntu community may decide down the road that the non-free services do not encumber Firefox itself, and thus do not render Firefox as non-free - in which case the services can e re-enabled by default.

If, however, the community determines that having non-free services enabled by default in Firefox *does* render Firefox as non-free, then having enabled those services by default would have set a potentially bad precedent.

[Ante Karamatić (ivoks)]

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 23:03:47 -0000
Chip Bennett <email address hidden> wrote:

> Thus, the issue for Ubuntu now is: what does it mean to have non-free
> services bundled by default in a free software application?

I think you are pushing this too far. Each TCP package you generate
uses services of lots of network hardware (and software!) which isn't
free. That's why, among lots of other reasons, we have free software -
so we can be sure our data is safe and we wouldn't give valuable
information to someone who shouldn't have it.

It's impossible to have a free service. I mean, even sourceforge
(mother ship of open source software) isn't free. It's even 'less free'
than Mozilla's services.

[Remco (remco47)]

It is certainly possible to have a free service. Look at the Affero General Public License. That deals with services. You could say that those are free services.

The problem is that "free service" is not very much defined. What makes something a free service? Apparently, the AGPL does. But is that the only free "web services license"? Are Terms of Service allowed in a free service?

Also, do we really want to have access only to free web services? If we define a free service as a service running on free software that is publicly available (basically what the AGPL does), then Google Search is definitely not free, since all information regarding their search algorithm is secret.

But does a free search engine exist? (seriously, I'd like to know) In the absence of free things, we use non-free things. Look at device drivers. Look at professional CAD software. Look at the ATM machine around the corner. Look at the security system of an airport. Even Richard Stallman uses these last two services, albeit grudgingly.

Until everything is free, you'll have to live with non-free stuff. That's how GNU was created by the way: slowly replacing everything in UNIX with a free replacement.

[Chip Bennett (chipbennett)]

"I think you are pushing this too far. Each TCP package you generate
uses services of lots of network hardware (and software!) which isn't
free. That's why, among lots of other reasons, we have free software -
so we can be sure our data is safe and we wouldn't give valuable
information to someone who shouldn't have it.

It's impossible to have a free service. I mean, even sourceforge
(mother ship of open source software) isn't free. It's even 'less free'
than Mozilla's services."

Except that I'm not taking things that far.

TCP, IP, FTP, SSL - these are all open standards. These are not "services" but rather communication protocols.

None of those services require that you either assent to their terms, or else disable them. There are no "end user terms of use" for these protocols (AFAIK).

By the way, it is not impossible to have a free service. Remember: a "service" is simply a software application that is run from a remote server, rather than from a local machine.

An example of a free service? WordPress. WordPress is an open-source service. I am free to modify it as I wish. (In fact, I do - albeit modestly.)

Another example? DNS. Go get TreeWalk, and roll your own DNS server.

Ultimately, the question is: how does all of this impact the discussion of the anti-phishing service enabled by default in Firefox?

[jackb_guppy (jackb-guppy)]

Agreed with FireFox in its default state with the services on, it is not free.
The trademark issue also pushes to envelope, I can understand Debian's view.
If Ubuntu has other apps that are loaded by default, that are encumbered,
   It really raises the question what is Ubuntu view of "free" and exactly what this apps are.

I do like the look of new FireFox pages, I do not like the method of hiding the non-free license. This is core issue. EULA suck, but the concept to get this agreement in front of the user is OK. But FireFox could have made the new page / first link on their website and offer to download add-on/turn-on this non-free service, once the user is made a where of the benefits and "cost", would have been stellar.

As it is left now, if left as mock ups show, FireFox must be considered non-free, hence moved to multi-verse.

[kafpauzo (kafpauzo)]

Chip Bennet said:

'Services - AKA "Software Servies", AKA "Software as a Service (Saas)" - are nothing more than software applications that are installed on a remote server rather than the local machine. As software applications, they are either open- or closed-source. They are either free or non-free.'

You say that they are "nothing more than software". On the contrary, they are far more than just software. The service consists of server hardware and maintenance, network connectivity and bandwidth, the collecting of blacklisting data and its quality assurance, dealing with people who feel wrongly blacklisted and related legal repercussions, dealing with language issues and legal consequences of having a presence around the world, coordinating all this, and so on and on and on.

The software is just a tiny component in a large and complicated operation.

That term "non-free service" is mistaken because the GPL meaning of "free" isn't applicable to the server bandwidth, the international language and legal dealings, and all the other parts of the service. Both legally and philosophically they are different worlds, since the MPL and (A)GPL are copyright licenses, while the mockup's "Website Services Agreement" very definitely isn't.

However I do think that there's a very valid and important issue here. It's just a different issue than a "non-free service".

The very interesting issue here is whether it's okay to connect people to a service without asking them, and, if you do this, whether it's okay to claim that by having been automatically connected they have agreed to the terms.

As I see it, it's very, very unfortunate if the browser must be delivered with the service turned off by default. It would make the service quite useless, because those who most need it would certainly not turn it on. Phishers and other scammers would thrive.

However it seems rather nonsensical to claim that by having been automatically connected to the service you agree to its terms. It seems far better if the text instead explains what the service is and what it does, and explains how you can turn it off if you prefer, worded in such a way that it becomes very clear and obvious that you can opt out if you don't want the service or don't like how it works. Then if you read that, and choose to leave it enabled, clearly you are accepting the service. It becomes the same thing as the old text, but with much more reasonable wording.

Of course most users won't read it, and so they aren't actually choosing to accept it. But I don't think that's much of a problem. When you install Ubuntu, you are implicitly accepting a huge amount of functionality without being asked about each functionality. You accept that others have made tons of choices for you. Very likely this service can be one more on this huge pile of implicitly accepted functionality.

In essence, by installing Ubuntu you implicitly agree to Ubuntu's defaults, except where you change them.

[CharmCityCrab (pf2144)]

Would it be possible to duplicate this anti-malware service without the involvement of Mozilla? Could the code be obtained? What about the malware list? Are they open-source? If they are, it seems to me that a company like Canonical could theoretically use the code in abrowser (or another browser that uses the Firefox code) and copy Mozilla's malware protection list on a slight delay. You'd really just need someone to receive the malware list, decode the data, and resend it, presuming it is open-source and thus legal to do so. If it's not, that's probably a reason to consider forking in and of itself.

Now, granted, there would be a lot of server and bandwidth costs associated with this, but I think that might be able to be mitigated by partnership. If Ubuntu talks to Debian talks to Fedora talks to Novel and so forth, and they can agree on a common name and basic code-base for a Firefox clone, and to share expenses related to it, the costs can be split several ways amongst them. A Windows port could even be created. And all of this would create revenue to off-set the cost through a partnership with a search engine like Google similar to the one Mozilla has with Google (Maybe the partnership could even be with a different search engine like Yahoo that would bid higher to steal people away -- or a genuine open-source search engine could be created). It would also create the all important name recognition where people would *want* to use the browser, and it wouldn't just be what they wind up using if they don't have the inclination to install Firefox.

One of the things that is probably key to a fork, if it's done, is that it not just be a half-hearted effort where someone throws up the firefox code with a name like "browser" and a generic logo, that's unique to just Ubuntu. To be marketable, it ideally would have a cool name, good artwork, available across multiple distros and on Windows, and be backed by someone who can try to duplicate Mozilla's malware protection service. Eventually, (down the road) maybe developers could even be hired and it could add distinctive features.

Having said all that, I am rather attached to Firefox. I think we all are. But it's important that it be free as in freedom to be used on the distro. Truth be told, I have a copy of Windows, and like using it -- and flash actually works correctly on it (Sorry gang, I'm sure flash works correctly on Linux for some people, I'm just not one of them). The reason I dual-boot Ubuntu is because I believe in Ubuntu's principles. I think a lot of folks feel that way. If Ubuntu takes a direction where it's principles are no longer what they are, then it's only advantage is being free as in beer -- which is nice if you've lost you're Windows disks or know how to build your own computer, but most people have already paid for Windows and have a working copy. One way Ubuntu sells itself is because it stands for something -- I think that's important.

I'm not saying fork or don't fork, I'm just saying principle should be considered in all this. And that if a fork is made, it should a real attempt at a browser with a cool animal name and logo or something available...

[Ante Karamatić (ivoks)]

> It is certainly possible to have a free service. Look at the Affero
> General Public License. That deals with services. You could say that
> those are free services.

Errr... ?! The licence clearly says:

'Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License,...' and

'...and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents
constitute a work based on the Program...'

And, as any other license, it's about software, not a service. You can
have GPL software on your computer, but your service, based on it, can
be non-free. Output of AGPL-ed software (aka service) can be non-free -
it's simple, AGPL doesn't cover services.

And, at last, how much are Affero's terms of use different that those
from Mozilla (except that are much, much bigger and difficult to read)?

http://www.affero.com/ctos.html

> The problem is that "free service" is not very much defined. What
> makes something a free service? Apparently, the AGPL does. But is
> that the only free "web services license"? Are Terms of Service
> allowed in a free service?

Free service doesn't have anything to do with free software. Those are
two totally different things.

> TCP, IP, FTP, SSL - these are all open standards. These are not
> "services" but rather communication protocols.
>
> None of those services require that you either assent to their terms,
> or else disable them. There are no "end user terms of use" for these
> protocols (AFAIK).

I wasn't talking about TCP. I said that TCP package you generate goes
from your computer and uses services of your ISP (like routing,
maybe NAT-ing, etc...) which are based on probably non-free hardware
and non-free hardware's operating system.

I don't see any difference between asking my ISP non-free router's
operating system where should my data go and asking
non-free Google/Mozilla if some website is 'phishing'. You can, as with
FTP, implement this on any project/browser
(http://code.google.com/apis/safebrowsing/).

IMHO, definition of free service is very much like open
standard/protocol. If I can use some service and share data collected
using that service, without restrictions, that's an open service.
Having service served by open source software, but not having rights to
share collected data is obviously non-free service. But even that can't
always be true...

Note: I'll not respond to any responses cause this bug report isn't the
right place to have this type of conversation.

[Creak (romain-failliot)]

>
> I don't see any difference between asking my ISP non-free router's
> operating system where should my data go and asking
> non-free Google/Mozilla if some website is 'phishing'.

The difference is that my ISP isn't pretending to be free. It can use free
software as much as it wants to, but its services doesn't become instantly
free.
Thus the main difference is that I can use non-free softwares or services
when I want and where I want, that's my freedom. But a software can't
pretend to be free (as in freedom) if it has non-free parts in it that can't
be removed by the user because eventually the user don't have the choice.

[Alexander Sack (asac)]

The following tasks are in progress to fix this bug in ubuntu:

 1. firefox-3.0 - implement the "Know Your Rights..." approach which was presented here: http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2008/09/17/mock-ups-available-for-notices-previously-was-eula/

 2. ubufox - back-out the firstrun EULA

Thanks,

 - Alexander

[Alexander Sack (asac)]

ubufox part of this bug is now "fix committed" in bzr. Remember that firefox-3.0 task is _still_ "in progress".

If you want to track the progress, the "Related Branches" are linked below the bug summary.

[Remco (remco47)]

Ante Karamatić wrote:
> And, as any other license, it's about software, not a service. You can
> have GPL software on your computer, but your service, based on it, can
> be non-free. Output of AGPL-ed software (aka service) can be non-free
> - it's simple, AGPL doesn't cover services.

The AGPL does cover services. It guarantees that the software continues
to be free if it is provided as a service.

> And, at last, how much are Affero's terms of use different that those
> from Mozilla (except that are much, much bigger and difficult to
> read)?
>
> http://www.affero.com/ctos.html

I don't know, because I haven't read them. Apparently it is OK to have
additional terms for the usage of a service governed by the AGPL. So, IF
we regard an AGPL licensed service as free, then ToS are OK. And then it
is also OK for them to be implicitly accepted by using the service.

> Free service doesn't have anything to do with free software. Those are
> two totally different things.

How can you say that with such confidence? I see no widely accepted
notion of a so-called "free service".

> IMHO, definition of free service is very much like open
> standard/protocol. If I can use some service and share data collected
> using that service, without restrictions, that's an open service.
> Having service served by open source software, but not having rights
> to share collected data is obviously non-free service. But even that
> can't always be true...

Note that you're now giving your own definition of free service. Clearly
we need a widely agreed definition before we can even think about having
a policy for it in Ubuntu.

You focus on the data, but think about this: if all collected data of a
service must be available to anyone, then there is no privacy anymore.
Say a forum is free by that definition, then they must give all account
information, all email addresses to anyone that asks. Nobody will want
to use such a forum anymore.

I think a focus should be more on the software, as the AGPL does. You
want to be able to run the exact same kind of service, so the code that
this service uses, should be available. That's what the AGPL guarantees.
You still have to create your own infrastructure and start mining data,
but that's the same with local free software.

With free software on your own computer you can generate some valuable
data, but you don't have to distribute that data if you want to
distribute the free software.

Remco

[Tim Post (tinkertim)]

On Fri, 2008-09-19 at 06:31 +0000, Ante Karamatić wrote:
> And, as any other license, it's about software, not a service. You can
> have GPL software on your computer, but your service, based on it, can
> be non-free. Output of AGPL-ed software (aka service) can be non-free -
> it's simple, AGPL doesn't cover services.

AGPL3 does. There is a specific clause for software that interacts with
users over a network.

A good example of an AGPL3 program can be found at:

http://sharesource.org

Sharesource is like sourceforge, however Sharesource also releases all
of the code that makes Sharesource.

If you use this code to make your own "Sharesource" and change it, you
are obligated to make your changes available to anyone using your
service.

There are various levels of 'teeth' to this, depending on how the author
implements the license. For instance, a good implementation leverages
the AGPL3 only when considering core code, not themes and icons. With
interpreted languages, there is no linking beyond vm bytecode, and only
its output is actually distributed .. so there is no combined work.

This means you can make the core of your killer service AGPL3, while
templates and other stuff can be any license compatible with the
standard GPL (many OSI approved licenses are). However, if you make the
core code depend on something new, your obligated to share that
something.

The purpose of the license is to help ensure cooperative development in
the days of SAAS. AGPL3 specifically addresses this need.

It helps to guarantee development in the open, however it should be used
with thought and care. Writing a web server like Apache and releasing it
under the AGPL3 is most decidedly not a good idea. Notice I said open,
not user freedom, which is what I would normally say. Your freedom ends
on the client, not server side of this situation. What remains is your
privacy, or (if your the developer) assurance that you get code back.

If you clone Google Apps, it might be a good license to pick.

Another misconception about it is the license carrying over to data..
for instance stuff in a MySQL database. That is not the case. Structured
queries used in the code apply, but not the data itself.

Hope this helps.

Cheers,
--Tim

[unimatrix9 (jochemscheelings)]

Some final after thoughts...

I wonder if the topic is closed succesfully? The eula has changed into an webpage with the notice
and is being worked on is what i know sofar, but still gives Ubuntu an moral issue, as to where firefox should go now, in nonfree repositories?

Would it have been better for firefox to move anti-phishing non free software to the add-ons that you install on choice? Like the non free flash player, you can choose to install, the open source version being gnash. Maybe there will be an free solution for anti-phishing in the opensource field in the future...as SAAS.

The non free anti-phishing software in firefox is an component of the mozilla and Google cooperation i thought, and, as i understand, information is sent to google and mozilla, for the blacklist etc...
Mozilla and Google , being open source advocates, cant simply open source the lot?
They would win my vote for that :)

cheers!

[kafpauzo (kafpauzo)]

@unimatrix9: "Would it have been better for firefox to move anti-phishing non free software to the add-ons that you install on choice?"

The anti-phishing does not involve any restricted software inside Firefox. All of the restricted software is on Google's servers. The software inside Firefox is free.

Firefox consults the service that is described at http://code.google.com/apis/safebrowsing/ (or something similar). The code inside Firefox that does this is free software.

The purists are worried that the software on Google's servers is restricted. The purists feel that because Google hasn't released their _server_ software, this makes Google's service non-free. They feel that Firefox becomes non-free just because it connects to servers that run non-free software.

My opinion is that such a purist view is extreme and impractical. I don't want my free software to be restricted to contacting only servers that run free software. I think this would be a very severe restriction.

I'm delighted that I'm invited and welcome to install huge lots of free-as-in-freedom software on my system, but I don't want to insist that every server that I contact do the same, nor do I feel that Firefox becomes any less free because of restrictions on Google's server software.

[Chip Bennett (chipbennett)]

On Friday 19 September 2008 2:46:38 pm kafpauzo wrote:
> The purists are worried that the software on Google's servers is
> restricted. The purists feel that because Google hasn't released their
> _server_ software, this makes Google's service non-free. They feel that
> Firefox becomes non-free just because it connects to servers that run
> non-free software.

Hopefully I'm not being misconstrued as a purist. I do not believe that
Firefox becomes non-free just because it connects to servers that run
non-free software.

My contention is that Firefox *may* become non-free because it has services
enabled that require the end user either accept their use terms, or else
disable those services. (The EULA for those services still resides within
Firefox, albeit presented in a far superior manner than that which begat this
bug report.)

> My opinion is that such a purist view is extreme and impractical. I
> don't want my free software to be restricted to contacting only servers
> that run free software. I think this would be a very severe restriction.

Again, I've not seen anyone advocate restricting anyone from using those
services; rather, only that those services be disabled by default in Ubuntu's
Firefox package.

Enabling those services is - at most - as simple as checking a configuration
check box.

> I'm delighted that I'm invited and welcome to install huge lots of free-
> as-in-freedom software on my system, but I don't want to insist that
> every server that I contact do the same, nor do I feel that Firefox
> becomes any less free because of restrictions on Google's server
> software.

I don't think anyone in this discussion has suggested what you seem to believe
has been suggested.

In the end, I'm just trying to get the conversation started with respect to
what "freedom" means in the nascent software-as-a-service world in which we
find ourselves. Firefox is just the first instance, but what happens here
will set a precedent. I think it is wise to think through what precedent
Ubuntu wants to set.

[TuniX12 (tunix12-deactivatedaccount)]

yes but firefox is dependent on Google service wich is non-free trade secret
software i suggest to remove firefox from the main repo and replace it by
abrowser by default or the debian unbranded release of FF.

[jackb_guppy (jackb-guppy)]

FireFox is non-free in it default configuration. Any attemp by the software to contact a server that I do not request, is in my mind thief-of-services. I can not stop FireFox from doing this before load ubuntu or calling firefox. I must access first then after my IP has been recorded and counted, I am allowed to not use it.

This software is not behaving correctly. Nor does it appear I have choice to use another provider without distoring the use of trademark.

This is lock-in and should be immediately be pushed into multiverse, and get a real free software version in place.

[TuniX12 (tunix12-deactivatedaccount)]

firefox code is free but its services require that you accept the eula this
is the only main package which do that and i think this is intolerable why
we accept such unique behavior ?

[kafpauzo (kafpauzo)]

@ Chip Bennet:

"My contention is that Firefox *may* become non-free because it has services enabled that require the end user either accept their use terms, or else disable those services."

This is certainly much more interesting and important.

(Unfortunately I can't help you start this discussion, I don't have much to say about it (yet).)

However I don't agree with you that "non-free service" and "freedom" are suitable terms for services. I think "free" causes confusion rather than clarity. It sounds like you mean "free as in the GPL", to which the necessary reply must be "the GPL doesn't apply". We do need a term, but "free" is too confusing.

"Enabling those services is - at most - as simple as checking a configuration check box."

People tend to interpret the defaults as a very strong recommendation.

When people are uncertain about the consequences of touching a setting, many will see the default as a recommendation that you should disobey only if you have a really compelling reason, and only if you have thought through all the consequences with great care.

As a consequence, the people who need this service will generally be afraid to touch the setting, and will only very rarely turn it on. Meanwhile those who don't need the service can turn it off very easily, for them it's quite trivial.

@ jackb_guppy:

"FireFox is non-free in it default configuration. Any attemp by the software to contact a server that I do not request, is in my mind thief-of-services. I can not stop FireFox from doing this before load ubuntu or calling firefox. I must access first then after my IP has been recorded and counted, I am allowed to not use it."

I get the impression that Ubuntu isn't the right distro for you. Ubuntu aims to be convenient and easily accessible. You're looking for maximum stealth.

For example, very soon after installation Ubuntu will look for updates at some server near you, without asking you, and you can't choose which server. I find this convenient and acceptable. Apparently you don't. In my opinion the Firefox anti-phishing service is quite comparable to this.

"Nor does it appear I have choice to use another provider without distoring the use of trademark."

The GPL does allow trademark restrictions. You'd need to find software that is published under a license that forbids trademark restrictions. I don't think you can find that, because I don't think such a license could be made practically useful and viable.

Certainly Ubuntu is not the solution: http://www.ubuntu.com/aboutus/trademarkpolicy

However it does seem that Mozilla uses trademark policies that are far more restrictive than necessary and clash badly with established FOSS practices. See http://lockshot.wordpress.com/2008/09/15/firefox-eula-in-linux-distributions/#comment-46 (but that discussion is about the previous Firefox EULA, it's not about the latest solution).

[Chip Bennett (chipbennett)]

On Friday 19 September 2008 8:39:41 pm kafpauzo wrote:
> @ Chip Bennet:
> However I don't agree with you that "non-free service" and "freedom" are
> suitable terms for services. I think "free" causes confusion rather than
> clarity. It sounds like you mean "free as in the GPL", to which the
> necessary reply must be "the GPL doesn't apply". We do need a term, but
> "free" is too confusing.

Perhaps it is too early to get caught up in terminology. I think that's part
of the problem: the environment is so new that we don't even know the proper
terminology.

That said, I think there's a big difference between "if you don't agree to the
use terms, just don't use" (passive end-user action) and "if you don't agree
to the use terms, disable" (active end-user action) - especially considering
that, in this example (Firefox anti-phishing services), most end-users will
not know that their assent is required to use the services. (To that end, I
understand why Mozilla wanted to expose the end user to the use terms.)

The real problem arises when something that squarely falls into our
understanding of "free software" (Firefox web browser) gets tangled up with
something that still does not (anti-phishing services).

 Free software by definition imposes no use restrictions on end users. Firefox
sans anti-phishing services imposes no use restrictions on end users. Firefox
*with* anti-phishing services *does* impose use restrictions on end users.

Therein lies the problem. And whether the services are called free/non-free,
or something else entirely, the end result is that Firefox itself is in a
state that really can't be considered to be fully consistent with the
definition of free software (at least, as far as I can thus reason).

> "Enabling those services is - at most - as simple as checking a
> configuration check box."
>
> People tend to interpret the defaults as a very strong recommendation.

I'm not sure I agree with that assertion. *Many* defaults are matters of
personal preference.

Perhaps it is true to say that most people do not change configuration
defaults for a given application, whether due to ignorance or apathy;
however, I'm not sure that most people would see those configuration defaults
as strongly recommended, "best practice", etc.

> When people are uncertain about the consequences of touching a setting,
> many will see the default as a recommendation that you should disobey
> only if you have a really compelling reason, and only if you have
> thought through all the consequences with great care.

That is exactly why Ubuntu could pop up a notice of its own (similar to the
notice that comes up when installing/enabling MP3 codecs) on a user's first
run of Firefox, explaining that the anti-phishing services are disabled by
default, why they are disabled, the benefits the services provide to the
user, and how to enable them (perhaps even offering to do so with a simple
button-click).

> As a consequence, the people who need this service will generally be
> afraid to touch the setting, and will only very rarely turn it on.
> Meanwhile those who don't need the service can turn it off very easily,
> for them it's quite t...

[jackb_guppy (jackb-guppy)]

@ kafpauzo

"I get the impression that Ubuntu isn't the right distro for you. Ubuntu aims to be convenient and easily accessible. You're looking for maximum stealth."

Actually I do other things for maximum stealth (and lack there of).

I do have an issue where, what appears as a hypocritical, including encumbered software into a free package. Ubuntu does not include the better drivers for NVadia (I know maximum the other way). Why should it include software that is "put its nose under the tent", then trying to hide the fact.

EULA was honest in one way - To get the user to agree about what they are doing. With the last mock I have seen, the Service License is hidden (unless you press a button), and then it is "below the fold". This is not being honest.

If Ubuntu supports this where is it "moral compass pointing"?

I choose Ubuntu for easy of use, getting my wife and kids to use. I liked the update feature and understood what it was going to do before installing Ubuntu and being used the first time. I even liked how NVadia were available with a two step (in my case 3 step) install. But not to giving same treatment to FireFox is wrong with it encumbered code by default, is where I see the hypocritical issue come to play.

[evildonkey (theevildonkey)]

unsubscribe

[Dragonlord (dreamsareimmortal)]

kafpauzo said:

"People tend to interpret the defaults as a very strong recommendation.
When people are uncertain about the consequences of touching a setting, many will see the default as a recommendation that you should disobey only if you have a really compelling reason, and only if you have thought through all the consequences with great care.
As a consequence, the people who need this service will generally be afraid to touch the setting, and will only very rarely turn it on. Meanwhile those who don't need the service can turn it off very easily, for them it's quite trivial."

This can be handled, as I said before, with a screen when you first run firefox saying something like "For safer browsing and anti-phishing protection, it is STRONGLY recommended that you enable these google services. Accepting them means you agree to the terms of use (link)" with a button underneath saying "enable anti-phishing services now". This way, the user doesn't have to go through menus and options, and it will be clear that the recommended and "default" setting is having those services enabled.

[Alan Lord (theopensourcerer)]

+1 to Dragonlord's comment #466

I have yet to be convinced that it is "the right thing to do" to include Firefox in *main* with these services enabled as default. In this state, FF is *not* "Free" software; you are required to accept a usage policy irrespective of how conspicuous or not that agreement happens to be.

Firefox/Mozilla are clearly trying to do "the right thing" - Canonical should do the same.

[riu (stanray)]

kafpauzo
>The GPL does allow trademark restrictions. You'd need to find software that is published under a license that forbids trademark restrictions.

A licence can only declare rules (it can't forbid or restrict anything, except the authors of the licence). A licence can restrict only the author of the licence. Many software companies are abide by the satements of their licences. They can't restrict you from copying and modifying, but they are abide by their words: they will fulfill unfulfillable rules, either eternally pursuing pirates or breaking their rules by not pursuing pirates. Ironically, in the Middle Ages you could buy an indulgence, and now you can buy rights and say "all rights reserved", when no rights are really reserved.

[Creak (romain-failliot)]

Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Let's imagine we're *not* talking about Google and Mozilla. I definitely
won't trust an Open Source software that is offered to me with a
pre-accepted EULA.
The reason is simple: it's only about trust. W'e ve seen, more than once,
companies that suddenly made their patented technology into profit (GIF,
JPG, MP3, ...). Thus as long as the company doesn't write clearly that it
will keep its technology free as in freedom, we can consider it potentially
closed.

So, even if I trust Google and even more Mozilla, I still want to be
reassured that what I'm using will not be suddenly shutdown or not free (as
in beer). And the only way to do that is to have a compatible free software
license [1]. Simple as that!

That said, if the services are disabled by default but that the first
Firefox page advices me to enable them. As far as I trust Ubuntu and that I
know Canonical point of view about freedom, I'll do it! But this way I don't
have the impression that someone is twisting my arm.

[1] http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/

[aschuring (aelschuring)]

In light of the recent comments, I'm starting to see the additional problems with having firefox as-is in main, especially with the web services enabled by default. Indeed, like Chip pointed out, Firefox with web services cannot be freely used without taking note of its use restrictions. I do accept Marks premise that web services are fundamentally of a different nature than applications, and therefore can not be treated the same.

But the bottom line remains the same: with anti-phishing enabled by default, Ubuntu is shipping a piece of software in main that has use restrictions in a default install (quoting from the draft Web Services Agreement: "[...] which are [...] made available subject to the terms below"). That's tough to reconcile with Ubuntu's promise of using only open/free software. On the one hand, requiring the user to take positive action in order to *disable* a web service he does not agree to is the wrong approach, but on the other hand, the users most likely to fall prone to phishing are the ones that will probably never go to the preferences dialog to enable the feature.

Finally, there is one other point I feel I should comment on: "[...] there is no "GPL for Services" but we expect one to emerge over the next few years, and this work by Mozilla is an important first step."

The GPL is not a use license: you can use the software without even being aware of the license. Like others have said, there is a GPL for services (Affero GPL) but at its core it's still a distribution license, not a use license, since it obliges the implementor of a service to convey the source of the service to its users. I do not agree that Mozilla is working on a "GPL for services" because what we're having is still an end-user license. In fact, it's not even Mozilla's. The agreement governs a web service provided (hosted) by Google.

[Alexander Sack (asac)]

Hi,

Finally some test builds are available for intrepid in my test archive:
  https://edge.launchpad.net/~asac/+archive

The package versions required are:
  firefox-3.0 - 3.0.2+build6+nobinonly-0ubuntu1~asac1
  xulrunner-1.9 - 1.9.0.2+build6+nobinonly-0ubuntu1~asac2
  ubufox - 0.6~b1-0ubuntu3~asac1

/etc/apt/sources.list lines would be:
 deb http://ppa.launchpad.net/asac/ubuntu intrepid main universe
 deb-src http://ppa.launchpad.net/asac/ubuntu intrepid main universe

Please test.

Thanks,

 - Alexander

[Vadim Peretokin (vperetokin)]

I think "free and open-source software" would make more sense, rather than
just "open software".

[Tim Post (tinkertim)]

On Sat, 2008-09-20 at 13:15 +0000, aschuring wrote:
> In light of the recent comments, I'm starting to see the additional
> problems with having firefox as-is in main, especially with the web
> services enabled by default. Indeed, like Chip pointed out, Firefox with
> web services cannot be freely used without taking note of its use
> restrictions. I do accept Marks premise that web services are
> fundamentally of a different nature than applications, and therefore can
> not be treated the same.

So I dived into Google, which is a shining example of:

* A company that supports free software
* A company that offers software as a service
* A company that historically does not respect user privacy.

If you install the Google toolbar, you get some agreeable features..
Then you get to the page rank display part which presents some privacy
implications.

If you turn on page rank display, you are greeted with a privacy
statement that you have to accept.

Most enable this to see page rank, as page rank is now famous. Perhaps
when the anti-phishing service in Firefox becomes as popular, people
will enable it without much question too.

There are plenty of Windows/FF users who may or may not establish this
service as a good idea in popular culture. Those users are rather used
to such license agreements.

I will be damned if I support Firefox using my free software as kindling
to ignite the fame of their service so that everyone trusts it blindly.
I will also be damned if I use or promote __any__ GNU distribution that
back-doors such a thing. Ubuntu is GNU/Linux, yes?

Mark, either get your head out of the toilet or stop complaining about
how much it stinks. When you impose this kind of thing on the free
software community that promoted your business (especially with no
warning) .. this is what you get. At least 6 major appliances now ship
with Ubuntu because of my recommendation. We (the FLOSS community)
existed way before Ubuntu. So did you, which is why I'm shocked. The
cost of doing business sometimes transacts negatively with your ego and
your investments, get over it.

Go ahead, term my launchpad account while questioning my conduct for
simply defending free software, I really don't care anymore. What you
have orchestrated attempts to exemplify an egregious betrayal of trust
which others have pointed out and that you have (frankly) failed to
address.

On a friendly note, didn't you miss this kind of stuff? :)

Friendly,
--Tim

[nullack (nullack)]

Nice workflow, unobtrusive, reassuring. Good stuff Alexander.

[Hew (hew)]

That seems to be a less invasive solution to me, making the default installation more usable, so thanks to those involved for the improvement. This still seems to be non-free though, so I still think firefox-3.0 or the branding package should be moved to restricted.

The unbranded/abrowser/iceweasel option must be offered as the real free choice. While I think it's an acceptable trade-off not to have this installed by default in order to keep the firefox brand, it's obvious from this report that the unbranded option needs to be taken seriously. Once issues like bug #269795 have been solved, it's probably fair to call this whole situation fix released :-)

[unimatrix9 (jochemscheelings)]

Option 2

Dont enable the anti-phishing by default, but educate about how it can be turned on.
Then there is, at first run no need for any of this, unless the user really wants the service and turns it on,
only then educate the user. Firefox free, ubuntu open and the community happy.

Thats all it takes i think.

Any other thoughts? :)

[JohnFlux (johnflux)]

> Dont enable the anti-phishing by default, but educate about how it can be turned on.

As others pointed out, the people who most need anti-phishing are the
ones who are least likely to change the settings :-)

[Usama Akkad (damascene)]

Tim Post wrote:
>
> So I dived into Google, which is ...u miss this kind of stuff? :)
>
> Friendly,
> --Tim
>

I think you should stop. What you say isn't going to help free software.
I respect Mark and I can't respect you. you seem so much ungrateful and
 respectless.

Mark shutellworh is a free software leader how is helping and promoting
free software. because of what he do people are liking GNU/Linux much
better. and if you closed your eyes you won't see the sun.

Who attacks any of the free software leaders is the real traitor. many
people dines The Biggest Truth, denying some one efforts is too much easier.

To MarK:

I tell you: have patience,, for lo! God loseth not the wages of the good.

About the bug:

Mozilla did great job making Firfox and they're not putting obstacles on
using their source code so they still doing a good job. and I don't see
why we can't use unbranded version. because what ever version why used
it still just a copy of Firfox and we are actually still using Mozilla
code. and we'll be grateful for Mozilla both way: branded or unbranded
version.

I'm with disabling the web service by default. but it would be nice if
Mozilla shows a warning of the danger that some one might get in if he
did not enable it. I think people read and understand don't they?

What ever Canonical comes out with we should keep in mind what it does
for free software. and we should respect their choice. even if we didn't
like it.

[Tim Post (tinkertim)]

On Sat, 2008-09-20 at 16:31 +0000, ua wrote:
> Tim Post wrote:
> >
> > So I dived into Google, which is ...u miss this kind of stuff? :)
> >
> > Friendly,
> > --Tim
> >
>
> I think you should stop. What you say isn't going to help free software.
> I respect Mark and I can't respect you. you seem so much ungrateful and
> respectless.

I should respect someone with $millions more than me who has not written
a line of (published) code in years?

I think not, at least not for just what he's spent money trying to
accomplish. Money means very little to me.

However, thank you for your opinion and I will stop, I'm done arguing.

Friendly,
--Tim

[Traumflug (mah-jump-ing)]

Am 20.09.2008 um 16:08 schrieb Alexander Sack:

> ** Attachment added: "Screenshot: proposed firstrun"
> http://launchpadlibrarian.net/17779249/firstrun1.png

Looks reasonable, even if I still think Mozilla's insistence makes
them look a bit silly.

Do you have a hint on how to reset Firefox to "new" without losing
all bookmarks?

MarKus

[Hew (hew)]

You can use the command firefox -profilemanager to add a new profile. This will let you test the new first-run EULA if you missed it (or want to experience it again). This new version of the EULA appeared for me even though I had already viewed the previous version, so if you're paying attention the first time you shouldn't need to create a new profile.

[Dragonlord (dreamsareimmortal)]

I hate to say this here, but Mark Shuttleworth is a businessman, a company leader, not exactly what I would call a free software leader. And that's fine! But we need to know what we're talking about. Even launchpad is not free software (yet), one wouldn't expect from a "free software leader" to release non-free software, wrong? Anyway, this is not about bashing mr. Shuttleworth, honestly, but we need to view things from a realistic perspective. If Ubuntu was not created with profit as one of the purposes, it would have been developed by a community, Debian-style, and not under the guidance, funding, and decisions of a company. Tim Post, I hear you, but you should know by now that companies are about profit. If you want to promote a distro that is and will remain faithful to the free software principles, use Debian or something else created and maintained only by a community. Maybe Canonical has an agreement with Mozilla to get a part of the Google money to have these services enabled, or maybe they just see it from a marketing point of view and want the brand recognition that firefox carries, for example to maintain their deal with Dell who might prefer something with Firefox since they have the choice between so many distros. Canonical is a company and that's what they do, go with the marketing rules, and that's understandable. If the community that supports, spreads Ubuntu and for the largest part makes it what it is likes that and lets it happen is another thing. For me, it's very fortunate and desirable for the free software community to have Canonical work with the laws of marketing to spread free software, as long as it doesn't compromise the principles of free software for this cause - because, you know, it becomes pointless since you can't support free software by contaminating it with non-free services that require a user agreement, at least on a default installation. It has become clear by now that the essence of this issue has not been fixed, since we're still talking about a user agreement required to use the software on its default configuration, it's now only hidden and considered that the user has agreed without stating it, only by not disabling the services. It's the same as bombing for peace, f***ing for virginity etc.

[Chip Bennett (chipbennett)]

On Saturday 20 September 2008 10:57:20 am JohnFlux wrote:
> > Dont enable the anti-phishing by default, but educate about how it can
>
> be turned on.
>
> As others pointed out, the people who most need anti-phishing are the
> ones who are least likely to change the settings :-)

I respect that position; however, the question of usefulness of the service is
secondary to the question of whether having them enabled by default results
in Firefox not conforming to the requirements of "free software".

If the issue of usefulness is deemed to be the primary issue, then Canonical
will need to change the operating principles for Ubuntu, as well as the
requirements for supported software in the Main repository.

After all, I can present a rather strong argument for the usefulness of MP3
codecs, proprietary video card drivers, etc. - and yet the usefulness of none
of those trumps the principles of free software Ubuntu promises nor the
requirements for supported software in the Main repository.

[Chip Bennett (chipbennett)]

On Saturday 20 September 2008 12:18:12 pm Dragonlord wrote:
> Anyway, this is
> not about bashing mr. Shuttleworth, honestly, but we need to view things
> from a realistic perspective.

Agreed; attacking Mark Shuttleworth over this issue is unnecessary and
unproductive.

> Maybe Canonical has an
> agreement with Mozilla to get a part of the Google money to have these
> services enabled, or maybe they just see it from a marketing point of
> view and want the brand recognition that firefox carries, for example to
> maintain their deal with Dell who might prefer something with Firefox
> since they have the choice between so many distros.

Personally, I choose to assume that Mark Shuttleworth/Canonical have no
ulterior motives with respect to the anti-phishing/malware services enabled
by default in Ubuntu, and that Mark Shuttleworth's view represents a
philosophical difference of opinion with respect to whether or not shipping
Firefox with those services enabled by default results in Firefox no longer
conforming to the requirements for free software.

> Canonical is a
> company and that's what they do, go with the marketing rules, and that's
> understandable. If the community that supports, spreads Ubuntu and for
> the largest part makes it what it is likes that and lets it happen is
> another thing. For me, it's very fortunate and desirable for the free
> software community to have Canonical work with the laws of marketing to
> spread free software, as long as it doesn't compromise the principles of
> free software for this cause - because, you know, it becomes pointless
> since you can't support free software by contaminating it with non-free
> services that require a user agreement, at least on a default
> installation.

I think that if Mr. Shuttleworth came to share our viewpoint on this issue,
that Canonical would decide not to ship Firefox with the services enabled by
default in Ubuntu.

> It has become clear by now that the essence of this issue
> has not been fixed, since we're still talking about a user agreement
> required to use the software on its default configuration, it's now only
> hidden and considered that the user has agreed without stating it, only
> by not disabling the services.

And that issue is the only reason I'm still commenting in this bug report. I
am really hoping to get an official answer from Shuttleworth/Canonical on
this issue. As I have already said, I don't care about the
usefulness/benefits of the anti-phishing/malware services until the question
of whether or not having them enabled by default renders Firefox as non-free.

Thus far, the most I have seen is that "services are still an unknown entity
in the free-software world" and "the services are too beneficial to disable."

If that is the extent of Canonical's introspection on this issue, I do not
believe it to be anywhere near sufficient.

[Remco (remco47)]

How is the integrated Google Search service any different from the integrated anti-phishing service? Both come with additional terms. Yet Google Search is not debated here, while the anti-phishing services are.

Maybe if you could configure from which provider you would like to get the anti-phishing information, it would be OK. That's the case with the search bar too. There is nothing standing in the way of adding a search engine that is a "free service". This is not yet possible with the anti-phishing service.

The problem is that there are no free alternatives. And I'm not convinced that the current solution is non-free. Also, I don't think Canonical or Shuttleworth can just come up -on the spot- with a good definition of a free service and with a policy on them. That needs a lot of debate.

[Chip Bennett (chipbennett)]

On Saturday 20 September 2008 4:18:03 pm Remco wrote:
> How is the integrated Google Search service any different from the
> integrated anti-phishing service? Both come with additional terms. Yet
> Google Search is not debated here, while the anti-phishing services are.

The significant difference between the two, as far as I can tell, istwo-fold:

1) The Google search service is enabled, but non-fuctional without explicit
user interaction. The Mozilla services are enabled, and are active without
any explicit user interaction.

2) The the Google search service does not require the user's explicit assent
of the end user license agreement, while the Mozilla services do - in this
case, explicit assent, in that the services are left enabled (the EULA
instructs that if the user does not agree to the terms, then the services are
to be disabled).

The Google search service only implies assent if the user actually *uses* the
service. If the user does not agree to the terms of use, he can simply not
use the services. The Mozilla services *require* that the user disable the
services if he does not agree to the terms of use.

> Maybe if you could configure from which provider you would like to get
> the anti-phishing information, it would be OK. That's the case with the
> search bar too. There is nothing standing in the way of adding a search
> engine that is a "free service". This is not yet possible with the anti-
> phishing service.

That is partly why I am suggesting that the Mozilla services should be
disabled by default in Ubuntu. If Canonical wants to make a super-simple
means of enabling those services (should the user choose to do so), and even
strongly suggest that the user do so, I think that is perfectly acceptable
behavior.

> The problem is that there are no free alternatives. And I'm not
> convinced that the current solution is non-free. Also, I don't think
> Canonical or Shuttleworth can just come up -on the spot- with a good
> definition of a free service and with a policy on them. That needs a lot
> of debate.

Technically speaking, Canonical/Mark Shuttleworth *can* come up with policy
on-the-fly. It's his company, and that is their right.

That said, the community certainly doesn't have to *agree* with that policy -
and it may not be in the company's best interest to do so.

I very well could be wrong, but I'm not sure that, in the end, this issue will
be one for which Canonical/Shuttleworth want to burn a lot of community
good-will capital.

[obiazzi (obiazzi)]

Alexander worote:
" * Screenshot: proposed about:rights (default) (75.4 KiB, image/png)"

IMHO, it is disrespectful to Ubuntu users to present an "Agreement" as "Agreed" by *default* ( as one can see in the mockup attached ).

Solutions:

i) don't call it "Agreement" ( suggestion: call it "Important disclaimer" )

ii) call it "Agreement" but require the user to *agree* the conditions to turn them on (*)

(*) for example, the first time that you navigate certain pages, Firefox popups security messages with a "don't show this the next time" check box marked.

In a similar way, after navigating a couple of pages, Firefox could popup the message:

"Firefox 3 provides a poerful antiphising service that can protect you from the bad guys , blah blah blah ... Do you wan't to enable it?"

If the user answer yes, then FF should display the [in]famous agreement that the user should *positevely* *agree*.

And every one happy.

[William Grant (wgrant)]

asac, this looks much better! about:rights is perhaps a little bland, but it's a bit more readable!

I question the wording of the notification bar at the top; the point it is trying to make is not that it's open, but that there are things which aren't. Software shouldn't present a button describing restrictions, with text next to it emphasising that it's open, not mentioning the non-freeness at all.

[Gavin Sharp (gavin-sharp)]

Alexander: the nsIAboutModule you implemented in http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~mozillateam/firefox/firefox-3.0.head/revision/327 doesn't return ALLOW_SCRIPTS from its getURIFlags, so the link on the page it displays will be broken if the user has JavaScript disabled.

[Alexander Sack (asac)]

Gavin: thanks. this is now address in bzr rev329.

[Alexander Sack (asac)]

Gavin: thanks. this is now addressed in bzr rev329.

[Prateek Karandikar (prateek.karandikar)]

"I question the wording of the notification bar at the top; the point it is trying to make is not that it's open, but that there are things which aren't."

Agreed. The point is not about the free/open-ness. Pidgin, OpenOffice, and many other installed-by-default things are free, they don't need any such thing. The way I see it, everything here boils down to the anti-phishing/anti-malware services, which require the user's agreement to use them. The purpose is to draw the user's attention to this.

The EULA issue might have been solved, but a bigger question remains: we are still bound by Mozilla's wishes. The EULA could be replaced by the bar on top only because Mozilla agreed to it. Isn't this (everything requiring a stamp of approval from Mozilla) against the spirit of free software? Canonical is treating Firefox as non-free software, by refusing to ship anything that Mozilla does not approve of. This is by Canonical's choice: it could have shipped binaries compiled from the GPLed code available from Mozilla.

Why does Mozilla get special treatment? Will Canonical never ship, say, a patched Pidgin which the Pidgin developers don't like?

Also, another issue is the "implicit agreement" thing. Suppose a user ignores the "know your rights" button. After all, [s]he uses free software all the time, and doesn't need a special reminded from Mozilla, [s]he thinks. The user continues to use Firefox normally. Is the user considered to have agreed to the terms of use of the web services? Mozilla, what do you say? If the answer is no, then users can legally use the web services without agreeing to your/Google's terms, so you might as well do away with them. If the answer is yes, ... well, there's surely something wrong in believing that users have agreed to an agreement which they haven't even seen. IANAL, but I doubt if a court will be of the view that the user has agreed to the terms.

[riu (stanray)]

Trademarks are similar to filenames in a filesystem, right? We can't have two files with the same name in the same folder... But we could have that file in another folder - it means that in another country we could register "Firefox" if you would like. But, anyways, you are not going to register anything, right? So, solution is simple... We can call Firefox whatever we want, not asking anyone for permission... Whether it is Iceweasel or Firefox or whatever - no matter.

[Mark Shuttleworth (sabdfl)]

Chip Bennett wrote:
>> Maybe Canonical has an
>> agreement with Mozilla to get a part of the Google money to have these
>> services enabled, or maybe they just see it from a marketing point of
>> view and want the brand recognition that firefox carries, for example to
>> maintain their deal with Dell who might prefer something with Firefox
>> since they have the choice between so many distros.
>>
>
> Personally, I choose to assume that Mark Shuttleworth/Canonical have no
> ulterior motives with respect to the anti-phishing/malware services enabled
> by default in Ubuntu, and that Mark Shuttleworth's view represents a
> philosophical difference of opinion with respect to whether or not shipping
> Firefox with those services enabled by default results in Firefox no longer
> conforming to the requirements for free software.
>
We do have agreements in place with Mozilla, and they are in the process
of being updated, but as far as I'm aware there's no commercial
dimension to the anti-phishing service at all.

The question about what sorts of terms of service would be incompatible
with the spirit of free software is a very interesting one, and I know
there's lots of good debate and discussion going on within our community
and within Canonical. Theres nothing like a consensus on the matter
(don't confuse the AGPL for terms of service for services).

At this stage, my own compass suggests that we are OK if:

 - the terms appear to be basically reasonable
 - the terms don't prevent you from working with anyone else
 - the terms don't prevent you from studying the service itself

For "basically reasonable" I ask myself "will most *aware* people want
this on"? By "aware" I mean people who are sensitive to issues of
licensing and data protection and their rights. Most people are
oblivious to those things, but the group of people cc'd on this bug are
probably "aware". And I'm pretty sure that the substantial majority of
folks cc'd on the bug have left the anti-phishing service active. I
certainly have. I would think it nuts to surf the web without it.

The middle one is, I think, important because we don't want to see
lock-in. One could go further and look for data portability and
protection, but I don't yet see any consensus about that.

And the last one is important people it's analogous to one of the
fundamental benefits of the four freedoms, the ability to learn from the
software one is using. I think it likely someone tries to wedge a
service in somewhere that says "you can't study this" (the way BitKeeper
did) and I think that would be non-free.

I'm sure, as the discussion evolves, we'll get a better framework, and
I'm not speaking for the whole CC here, just myself. There are serious
members of the community who are extremely aware of these issues who
have been part of the process in driving to a resolution, and as far as
I'm aware we are all comfortable with this latest round of proposals.
There is still some detailed due-diligence under way on the specific
language used and compatibility with each of the licenses in play, and
if problems turn up there, we'll work with Mozilla to get them
addressed. Our int...

[Mark Shuttleworth (sabdfl)]

William Grant wrote:
> I question the wording of the notification bar at the top; the point it
> is trying to make is not that it's open, but that there are things which
> aren't. Software shouldn't present a button describing restrictions,
> with text next to it emphasising that it's open, not mentioning the non-
> freeness at all.
>
There's a discussion going on across the whole community of Mozilla and
Firefox users, to try and reach final wording. At this stage, the
wording we have represents the latest iteration of that discussion. We
drove the structure of the solution (the info panel, followed by the
statement of rights and terms of service) but the exact wording needs to
be agreed across the whole community.

Mark

[Prateek Karandikar (prateek.karandikar)]

Mark Shuttleworth wrote:

"There is no doubt in my mind that the right thing to do is leave the anti-phishing service on, and leave Firefox in main."

Do you believe that it is acceptable to have application software in main that you are not free to modify and distribute? Doesn't this contradict the Ubuntu "main" Component license Policy( http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/licensing )?

All application software included in the Ubuntu main component:

    *Must include source code. The main component has a strict and non-negotiable requirement that application software included in it must come with full source code.
    *Must allow modification and distribution of modified copies under the same license. Just having the source code does not convey the same freedom as having the right to change it. Without the ability to modify software, the Ubuntu community cannot support software, fix bugs, translate it, or improve it.

[Alexander Sack (asac)]

A new intrepid build is available in my preview/testing archive:
 - https://edge.launchpad.net/~asac/+archive
 - firefox-3.0 - 3.0.2+build6+nobinonly-0ubuntu1~asac2

This upload addresses some technical details and comes with updated wording for the notification displayed on firstrun as well as for the about:rights page.

I think it addresses a few of the comments made above, e.g.:

 + first run page now reads "open _source_ software" (vs. just "open software")
 + main title for about:rights page reads now "ABOUT: YOUR RIGHTS" (vs. "Free Software and Mozilla Services")
 + title for the web service terms reads now: "MOZILLA FIREFOX WEB SITE SERVICES" (vs. "Mozilla Firefox Website Service Agreement").

Will attach new screenshots too. Please test.

Thanks,

 - Alexander

[Mark Shuttleworth (sabdfl)]

Prateek Karandikar wrote:
> "There is no doubt in my mind that the right thing to do is leave the
> anti-phishing service on, and leave Firefox in main."
>
> Do you believe that it is acceptable to have application software in
> main that you are not free to modify and distribute? Doesn't this
> contradict the Ubuntu "main" Component license Policy(
> http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/licensing )?
>
All of the software in question can be freely modified and distributed.

Mark

[furicle (furicle)]

On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Alexander Sack <email address hidden> wrote:
>
> ** Attachment added: "Screenshot: proposed about:rights (expanded) (rev2)"
> http://launchpadlibrarian.net/17836931/about_rights_expanded.png

A nit - do we really need ALL CAPS? Even Mr. Shuttleworth doesn't
seem to be too fond of them :-)

And a "Thank You!" to all involved in providing solutions to this bug
- The obvious issues have been addressed, and the less obvious issues
discussed thoughtfully. We freetards may be a loud and obnoxious
bunch from time to time, but proof positive the process works in spite
(because of?) it when everybody buys in.

[pj (pj-groklaw)]

Since Mark is asking for input on the service, I will tell you that the first thing I do is
turn off antiphishing services, along with every other thing that tends to track my
surfing. I turn off Javascript and cookies too, for example, so I'm definitely not the
average person in my habits. I turn stuff on as needed, clean up, and turn it off
again.

So I don't think one can assume that there are no people who will find the antiphishing
service objectionable.

I personally would prefer that it be turned off by default and allow folks to turn it on
if they want it. There seems no reason to treat people like children, needing our
protection whether they want it or not. How much pain would that cause Mozilla,
compared to the pain caused to those of us who really care about Main being
clean?

The software is modifiable, but after you say I agree, then is it? Under the same
license? I was sick last week, so I haven't had a chance to seriously review the
language on the services part, so this is just to make clear that while I definitely
see the major issue, the EULA, resolved, I haven't said the same about the
services agreement to date.

My question is this, and please excuse a stupid question, but I'm not a programmer, so
I don't know, and to analyze the language, I need to understand this point: is the
antiphishing part strictly services, or is there not software involved too? If the latter,
surely that software is not freely redistributable and modifiable, is it? If it isn't,
then where are we if it is on by default?

[Przemek K. (azrael)]

Sorry PJ, but I can't agree with you. What's the point of having super-duper antiphishing features in web browsers if they were turned off by default? Why users should be bothered to turn them on? Those who don't want such antiphishing services are a minority. So they can have a little more hassle to turn off the features they don't need. Imagine if car producers would do as you suggest - latest cars with ABS, ESP, and other safety features would have them turned off by default. Would that improve their security? I don't think so.
These antiphishing filters are being made with a good will. Their primary function is to protect users. If you don't believe in it then you can check the source code and see if that is true or not. You can always opt-out from them so you always have a choice.

[Chip Bennett (chipbennett)]

On Monday 22 September 2008 4:12:23 am Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
> The question about what sorts of terms of service would be incompatible
> with the spirit of free software is a very interesting one, and I know
> there's lots of good debate and discussion going on within our community
> and within Canonical. Theres nothing like a consensus on the matter
> (don't confuse the AGPL for terms of service for services).
>
> At this stage, my own compass suggests that we are OK if:
>
> - the terms appear to be basically reasonable
> - the terms don't prevent you from working with anyone else
> - the terms don't prevent you from studying the service itself
>
> For "basically reasonable" I ask myself "will most *aware* people want
> this on"? By "aware" I mean people who are sensitive to issues of
> licensing and data protection and their rights. Most people are
> oblivious to those things, but the group of people cc'd on this bug are
> probably "aware". And I'm pretty sure that the substantial majority of
> folks cc'd on the bug have left the anti-phishing service active. I
> certainly have. I would think it nuts to surf the web without it.
>
> The middle one is, I think, important because we don't want to see
> lock-in. One could go further and look for data portability and
> protection, but I don't yet see any consensus about that.
>
> And the last one is important people it's analogous to one of the
> fundamental benefits of the four freedoms, the ability to learn from the
> software one is using. I think it likely someone tries to wedge a
> service in somewhere that says "you can't study this" (the way BitKeeper
> did) and I think that would be non-free.
>
> I'm sure, as the discussion evolves, we'll get a better framework, and
> I'm not speaking for the whole CC here, just myself. There are serious
> members of the community who are extremely aware of these issues who
> have been part of the process in driving to a resolution, and as far as
> I'm aware we are all comfortable with this latest round of proposals.
> There is still some detailed due-diligence under way on the specific
> language used and compatibility with each of the licenses in play, and
> if problems turn up there, we'll work with Mozilla to get them
> addressed. Our interest here is in getting to a positive outcome, which
> for me means helping Mozilla as well as helping our users.

Actually, based on the most recent wording of the "terms" as posted by
Alexander, my specific concerns have essentially been allayed.

In reading those terms, I don't see anything that constitutes an "agreement"
with Mozilla in order to use the services. Also, the *requirement* to disable
(i.e. "must disable") the services if the user does not agree with the terms
has been replaced with non-compulsory language (i.e. "may disable").

In this light, I see the terms of use of the services now in a state that is
functionally and essentially equivalent to the terms for use of Firefox
itself. Use of the services imposes no further, improper, or otherwise undue
restrictions on the user.

> There is no doubt in my mind that the right thing to do is leave the
> anti-phishing service on, and leave Fi...

[Remco (remco47)]

> All of the software in question can be freely modified and distributed.
>
>Mark

This hasn't been true for a long time. The version of Firefox that is shipped can not be modified freely. If we don't get permission from Mozilla to ship a revised binary, we can't. This has to do with the artwork and name, both of which are not released under a free license.

The same is true for many games. The Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory game engine is free software, but the artwork is not. The Quake III code is free software, but the artwork is not. And this goes for many other games too.

And in a very practical literal sense: can we remove this new "Know your rights" information bar if we want to? After all, it's just informational, right? It's not a EULA anymore. I guess Mozilla doesn't allow that. The mere fact that Mozilla has any say in this makes Firefox non-free.

Those games will never end up in main, and neither should Firefox. If the non-free parts of Firefox are essential to Ubuntu, the package should be moved to restricted and the licensing page should be modified:

"All of the application software installed by default is Free Software. In addition, we install some hardware drivers that are available only in binary format, but such packages are clearly marked in the restricted component."

The first word "All" should be replaced with "Most" and added should be something along the lines of: "In addition, we install some application software that has a strong brand, which is a higher priority than absolute software freedom".

[chris_c (c-camacho)]

Firefox cannot be distributed in a modified form.

The whole point of the branding from Mozzila's point of view was that
there should not be 100's of modified Firefox's floating about

If it can not be modified and distributed by *definition* it can not be
in main...

Otherwise you are saying we can take Iceweasle and put FF branding on
it?

C

On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 16:11 +0000, Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
> Prateek Karandikar wrote:
> > "There is no doubt in my mind that the right thing to do is leave the
> > anti-phishing service on, and leave Firefox in main."
> >
> > Do you believe that it is acceptable to have application software in
> > main that you are not free to modify and distribute? Doesn't this
> > contradict the Ubuntu "main" Component license Policy(
> > http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/licensing )?
> >
> All of the software in question can be freely modified and distributed.
>
> Mark
>
--
Disclaimer:
By sending an email to ANY of my addresses you are agreeing that:

   1. I am by definition, "the intended recipient"

   2. All information in the email is mine to do with as I see fit and
make such financial profit, political mileage, or good joke as it lends
itself to. In particular, I may quote it where I please.

   3. I may take the contents as representing the views of your company.

   4. This overrides any disclaimer or statement of confidentiality that
may be included on your message.

[Ante Karamatić (ivoks)]

On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 19:20:18 -0000
Remco <email address hidden> wrote:

> This hasn't been true for a long time. The version of Firefox that is
> shipped can not be modified freely. If we don't get permission from
> Mozilla to ship a revised binary, we can't. This has to do with the
> artwork and name, both of which are not released under a free license.

Debian, Linux, RedHat, Ubuntu... All trademarks. You can't use them
freely - as no one can use your name for something you didn't do.

If you own a website with 'linux' in the domain name, and if you use it
as a trademark, you need a sublicense from LMI - the name 'Linux' isn't
free.

Check this out (http://www.slackware.com/trademark/trademark.php):

In order to be called "Slackware", the distribution may not be altered
from the way it appears on the central FTP site (ftp.slackware.com).
This is to protect the integrity, reliability, and reputation of the
Slackware distribution.

and this (http://www.gentoo.org/foundation/en/):

The Gentoo Foundation is the legal owner of the Gentoo trademark and
logo. To protect Gentoo it will oversee the use of the Gentoo name and
logo and take appropriate action when the Gentoo Foundation feels that
the name or logo is wrongfully used.

Are Slackware and Gentoo non-free then? Even Debian has a trademark
policy which is clearly non-free, as you can't do whatever you want
with 'Debian'.

Notice how Slackware and Mozilla have identical trademark protection.
You can't change a bit in Slackware's source and call it Slackware.
This, of course, has nothing to do with software, which is free and
you can do whatever you want with it. Trademark isn't software.

[bob someone (hahabob-deactivatedaccount)]

unsubscribe

[unimatrix9 (jochemscheelings)]

To understand a bit more about the anti phishing in firefox you should read about the documentation,
http://code.google.com/p/google-safe-browsing/wiki/Protocolv2Spec , or other pages about the code.

Now know that the service is not perfect, let me explain, what i mean for the part i understand what it does:

Firefox anti service is turned on , the website you visit is compared with a blacklist that resides somewhere on google or partners servers, it has been known to go wrong,

see : http://www.finjan.com/Pressrelease.aspx?PressLan=1230&id=1261&lan=3

Or blocks sites that are no treat at all

see : http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/21/1827209&from=rss

Yes its a powerfull censure tool , its also a way to make money, surf behavior statistics and phishing sites,
do we have any influence on the service and what is censured?

There seems to be an ( dead? ) project for open source anti phishing services :

http://opdb.berlios.de/ and http://www.antiphishing.org/events/2006_researchSummit.html

There might be more, but i could not find them. Are they safe? I would trust google more at the moment.
The service is running on their servers, so need not to be open source, the information sent comes from ours, the sending part of code also runs on ours, as you can study in the code above.
Maybe some more views on the code is wise?

I think its good to know, the ups and downs, since the discussion is coming to its conclusion, the more we understand of what we are choosing the better it is to explain the choice.

Hope to be of service,

friendly greetings from the netherland.

[Prateek Karandikar (prateek.karandikar)]

> All of the software in question can be freely modified and distributed.
>
>Mark

If this was so, you could have removed the EULA yourself to begin with, and much of this discussion would not have occurred. Remco put it well: "The mere fact that Mozilla has any say in this makes Firefox non-free."

[Mark Shuttleworth (sabdfl)]

pj wrote:
> Since Mark is asking for input on the service, I will tell you that the first thing I do is
> turn off antiphishing services, along with every other thing that tends to track my
> surfing. I turn off Javascript and cookies too, for example, so I'm definitely not the
> average person in my habits. I turn stuff on as needed, clean up, and turn it off
> again.
>
In the community of folks who are very aware of the sort of abuse that
goes on, being conservative about JS and cookies isn't unusual. Those
are definite attack vectors on one's online identity and privacy.

Out of curiosity, would you prefer that cookies and javascript be
disabled in the default case for Ubuntu, too? If the argument is that
anti-phishing might be used to track your surfing, like cookies and JS,
and therefor it should be turned off, would it not also be consistent to
want JS and cookies disabled by default? We certainly take the view that
we (Ubuntu) are entrusted with our users security, so this would be
worth exploring. My gut feel would be though that most people would say
"I'll turn that off for myself where I'm concerned, but I understand
that the default should for JS to be switched on".

A second question would be: how would one know when to turn on the
anti-phishing service? With JS and cookies it's relatively
straightforward. One surfs along without them, and then something
doesn't work, and you decide "I think this site looks trustworthy, and I
really want to complete this thing I started, I'll enable JS and
cookies". But, how would you decide to enable the anti-phishing service?
And isn't the anti-phishing service very useful in helping to decide
whether or not to enable JS and cookies? I certainly wouldn't want
cookies on at a site that was red-flagged in the anti-phishing service.

> So I don't think one can assume that there are no people who will find the antiphishing
> service objectionable.
>
Fair enough :-). I think this is what makes our discussion interesting -
we have to be aware of the extremes of abuse or attack, and we also have
to be aware of what "most people want". And in the case of Ubuntu, it's
not even that, it's what "most people like us want", where "people like
us" means people alive to these issues and interested in finding
pragmatic and usable expression for that awareness.

> I personally would prefer that it be turned off by default and allow folks to turn it on
> if they want it. There seems no reason to treat people like children, needing our
> protection whether they want it or not. How much pain would that cause Mozilla,
> compared to the pain caused to those of us who really care about Main being
> clean?
>
I don't think that people "turning off" the anti-phishing service causes
Mozilla pain. I don't have any reason to think that's anything other
than an expense for Google or Mozilla. I think though, that the general
feeling is that having it there and on makes for a better, safer
browsing experience, and the idea is that "Firefox stands for the best
browsing experience and is also, amazingly, all free software". So, I
imagine that to the Mozilla folks (and I'm *not* conveyin...

[Mark Shuttleworth (sabdfl)]

Prateek Karandikar wrote:
>> All of the software in question can be freely modified and distributed.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>
> If this was so, you could have removed the EULA yourself to begin with,
> and much of this discussion would not have occurred. Remco put it well:
> "The mere fact that Mozilla has any say in this makes Firefox non-free."
>
Prateek, we have been over this several times now.

We could ABSOLUTELY have removed the EULA, and then we would have had to
call the browser something like Iceweasel or abrowser. And in fact, if
you look in Intrepid, there are packages of that there just in case we
or you want to do that.

However, since we would prefer (and our users would prefer) Firefox, we
do need to work with Mozilla. That's perfectly reasonable. And the
results of that engagement have been positive: the EULA is gone, and I
think we are converging on a reasonable approach modulo final legal
analysis as PJ described. Engagement is always our first approach, and
only if that fails should we ostracise an upstream. Upstream is our
rock, right? They do the rocket science that makes free software
possible, we should respect and engage positively with them to the very
greatest extent possible.

I hope you consider Debian free software, but you cannot just take Etch,
change a few things to suit you, and then call the result Debian. Same
for Ubuntu, or Gentoo, or ... any branded, trademarked service. That is
not a restriction on your ability to modify the code, it's a restriction
on your ability to pretend that the result is someone else's work.

Mark

[_oOMOo_ (hermann-blaxhall)]

The way this discussion has developed and the obvious participation of major figures in the OS community is another solid reason for me to appreciate open source software.

Whilst not directly related to the EULA, if the version of Firefox to be included in Ubuntu in the future will incorporate something similar to the proposed screenshots, would it be possible to include a few words about how the anti-phishing services work?

With regard to comment #513:

My understanding is that Firefox downloads a list of suspected attack/forgery sites and locally checks urls against this list. The list is then maintained but no user data is sent to a remote server. This is different (I believe) to the way Google Toolbar works in respect of the page rank information, where all visited URLS are checked remotely. Would it be possible to reassure users that no personal browsing data is retrieved and possibly stored by Mozilla and Google?

[Alan Lord (theopensourcerer)]

Just to throw in my metaphorical towel.

Chip Bennet, who I have found myself agreeing with from the beginning and who has a much better way with words than me, has apparently actually gone and read the agreement that is the final piece of this puzzle.

In comment 508: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/firefox-3.0/+bug/269656/comments/508 he basically concludes that the new wording of the terms do not appear to require any concrete action; in fact the action is now non-compulsory:

"... I see no reason for the services not to be enabled by default - with respect to matters of software freedom. (I still contend that the matter of the *usefulness* of those services is not germane to the issues at hand and under discussion in this bug report.)"

Having just read the terms myself here (http://launchpadlibrarian.net/17836931/about_rights_expanded.png), I concur with Chip completely. The language is plain (even I can understand it) and does not appear to impose any restrictions on my usage. In reality, it simply explains to me that the service might not be 100% effective.

I'd love to see PJ's analysis but it looks fine by me.

+1 to continue including Firefox in main.

This has been a very exhilarating experience. A large cohort of community members have been able to have their say and it would seem that the majority have been very clearly heard. A most excellent outcome seems imminent for all involved.

PS - The image of the "terms" has a major typo however: *Items 4 and 5 are the same*. Please can we see the "official" terms - if they are done yet - before closing this?

[Alexander Sack (asac)]

I am pleased to say that we reached a state where I feel comfortable to call this bug "fix committed".

Thanks to all for contributing, testing and providing feedback.

The screenshots i just posted reflect the current state as of rev 337 on the firefox-3.0.head branch, which is most likely what will get uploaded to intrepid quite soon.

Thanks again,

 - Alexander

[Remco (remco47)]

Trademark is, like copyright and patents, an "intellectual property", designed to restrict other people. It's not in the spirit of free software to be bound by any of these. Patent problems are hard to avoid in general, which is why they should be abolished. Copyright has been tamed by free software and trademark should be used carefully, if at all. If you want your work to be redistributed as free software under its original name, trademark presents a problem.

By the way, these restrictions actually encourage cloning. Had there been no copyright on UNIX, there would have been no 10 different versions of it, including GNU. Had there been no patents on MPEG, there would have been no Theora. Had there been no trademark on Firefox®, there would have been no Iceweasel, Icecat or abrowser.

> Notice how Slackware and Mozilla have identical trademark protection.
> You can't change a bit in Slackware's source and call it Slackware.
> This, of course, has nothing to do with software, which is free and
> you can do whatever you want with it. Trademark isn't software.

Note also that other distributions (even if they were based on Slackware) are not called Slackware. And therefore, they use the free nameless version of the combined software. If they would be called Slackware, they would be non-free (they would be misleading and confusing as well).

The same is true for the Firefox code. If we use the nameless version and build our own brand, we use free software. If we use Firefox®, we aren't using free software, since the license of the branded binary is non-free.

There is a difference between distributions and application software. Trademark usually doesn't conflict with distributions, since each distribution wants its own name and identity. If a distribution's name falls under the trademark of another distribution, it would be non-free, but it would also be a bug.

However, Firefox® must be included in a distribution. This means the distribution will always fall under the trademark of Mozilla. This can only be solved by removing the trademarked parts.

Think back to the games: Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory is absolutely free.... except for the artwork. You are completely free to change the code, but there is this blob of stuff that you can't change.

Now, the following is a very small part of the problem, but still I mention it because the analogy is perfect: Mozilla Firefox is absolutely free, except for the artwork. You can't modify the logos.

But besides the logos, there is this other restriction:

Mozilla Firefox is absolutely free... except for the trademark. You are completely free to change the code, but you're not allowed to change stuff if Mozilla doesn't want you to. To keep Mozilla happy, you have to compromise by allowing this friendly notice, and whatever Mozilla may want in the future. Basically, Mozilla is an "additional terms wildcard".

I don't like this any more than anyone. I want to use Firefox, but I also want to use software that is not restricted by outsiders. The Firefox code and Firefox® are two different products with two different licenses. The one is free, but undesirable. The other is bound by Mozilla's wishes, but a ...

[Ante Karamatić (ivoks)]

On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 14:46:03 -0000
Remco <email address hidden> wrote:

> Trademark is, like copyright and patents, an "intellectual property",
> designed to restrict other people.

No, you don't understand trademarks. Trademarks are designed to watch
out for your property, where 'you' can be whatever you want; community,
open source software, a person...

Let me put it this way. If you write a poem and put your signature on
it, and make sure that everybody can see it and even base their work on
it, copy it and share it, would you accept that each derivation of that
poem is yours? If you put your signature on 'Roses are red' and someone
else modifies it into (lets be as bad as we can) 'Nazis are good',
would you be ok with your signature under that poem? I wouldn't.

GPL it self says that if you modify a software, you should add at least
add notice that this is not original software:

'If the software is modified by someone else and passed on, we
want its recipients to know that what they have is not the original, so
that any problems introduced by others will not reflect on the original
authors' reputations.'

Now, if there wouldn't be trademarks on software, what would stop you
from calling Epiphany based on WebKit - a Firefox? Or, Windows Vista -
latest Slackware?

> By the way, these restrictions actually encourage cloning. Had there
> been no copyright on UNIX, there would have been no 10 different
> versions of it, including GNU.

Had there been no trademarks and no source of UNIX, we would still have
tons of different UNIX like operating systems. What's even worse,
they all might have exactly the same name, but the application X
wouldn't run on them all, even tough they are all SuperUNIX. This
doesn't look like sane environment to me. How about you?

You see how trademarks and open source don't have anything in common?
They are unrelated.

> The same is true for the Firefox code. If we use the nameless version
> and build our own brand, we use free software. If we use Firefox®, we
> aren't using free software, since the license of the branded binary is
> non-free.

There is no license on Firefox binary. There's license on Firefox
source code and there is a Firefox trademark.

> However, Firefox® must be included in a distribution. This means the
> distribution will always fall under the trademark of Mozilla. This can
> only be solved by removing the trademarked parts.

If we would start removing trademarks from Ubuntu, we would have to
remove... Almost all software in it, including linux kernel. Cause,
Linux is a trademark. Bottom line, we wouldn't have operating system.

[Remco (remco47)]

> No, you don't understand trademarks. Trademarks are designed to watch
> out for your property, where 'you' can be whatever you want; community,
> open source software, a person...

Yes, I do understand trademarks. The same thing is said for copyright, patents, and even technical restriction management: it protects property. But it does by severely restricting freedom.

> Let me put it this way. If you write a poem and put your signature on
> it, and make sure that everybody can see it and even base their work on
> it, copy it and share it, would you accept that each derivation of that
> poem is yours? If you put your signature on 'Roses are red' and someone
> else modifies it into (lets be as bad as we can) 'Nazis are good',
> would you be ok with your signature under that poem? I wouldn't.

That's not trademark infringement, but libel or slander.

> GPL it self says that if you modify a software, you should add at least
> add notice that this is not original software:
>
> 'If the software is modified by someone else and passed on, we
> want its recipients to know that what they have is not the original, so
> that any problems introduced by others will not reflect on the original
> authors' reputations.'

That's perfectly fine. If there were no trademarks, Ubuntu's version of Firefox could be shipped with an about window that says there were some modifications for integration and security.

> Now, if there wouldn't be trademarks on software, what would stop you
> from calling Epiphany based on WebKit - a Firefox? Or, Windows Vista -
> latest Slackware?

If it was done with the purpose of defamation, then it could be prosecuted. Otherwise, there is no problem, because you don't do such things. These are extreme cases which don't happen in reality.

> Had there been no trademarks and no source of UNIX, we would still have
> tons of different UNIX like operating systems. What's even worse,
> they all might have exactly the same name, but the application X
> wouldn't run on them all, even tough they are all SuperUNIX. This
> doesn't look like sane environment to me. How about you?

Take a look around. There are tons of Linux distributions. Most of the names are not covered by trademarks. Still, there are as many names as there are distributions. Insane?

> You see how trademarks and open source don't have anything in common?
> They are unrelated.

Nope, I don't see it. Trademark still restricts free software.

> If we would start removing trademarks from Ubuntu, we would have to
> remove... Almost all software in it, including linux kernel. Cause,
> Linux is a trademark. Bottom line, we wouldn't have operating system.

Why do you think Ubuntu is not called "Ubuntu Linux"? The trademark has been removed from the name.

[pj (pj-groklaw)]

Hi Mark, all,

I had time to read over the services wording, and I can't find serious fault with it, but IANAL. I'm sure you are asking one, so here's my only suggested change:

Firefox also *offers optional* web site information services, such as blah blah....

Instead of:

Firefox also *uses* web site information services....

http://launchpadlibrarian.net/17877776/about_rights_expanded.png

The reason for the suggested change is so people are aware that Firefox works perfectly well without the service, so they won't be afraid to turn it off if they don't want that kind of protection. If it were me, I'd explain what a "web site information service" is. It's an antiphishing service, no? Why not say so?

  I'm not clear why they use the plural "services" instead of "service" throughout. If there are several, what else is there? Or if there is only the one, are they preparing for future services? I hope not, since you don't want people to say I agree to unknown things.

6 worries me a bit, from Mozilla's standpoint. If they update, will they get an "I agree" at that time? I hope so.

Trademarks:

For the record, I would be very happy if every project understood the purpose of trademark law better. The purpose is to protect the public, so you don't buy a Brand X pretend Gucci bag instead of the real thing and get ripped off.

That's the purpose. It prevents litigation against the wrong party, and it prevents unjust damage to reputations. And it's the law, whether you make it work for you or not. You don't have to register a trademark to have one, and you can lose one if you don't act to protect it. After that, your name is in the winds, usable by anyone. Why wouldn't you make the law work for you instead of against you? A really large project has to, I think, because others will try to rip off the reputation of any successful project. It is what it is.

Whether the actual requirements here to protect the marks are needed or not as set forth, I can't say, because it would require a lawyer, not just me, and more knowledge of the specifics than I have. But to take affirmative steps to protect your project is just good sense, in my view, and I not only understand Mozilla's worries, I support in that generalized sense their desire to protect themselves. The law compels them.

And, of course I'm a huge fan of yours too, Mark. Really. Seriously.

On grannie, though, I think you may want to think from a different standpoint. I acknowledge your amazing skill and energy at mobilizing and spreading acceptance of GNU/Linux on the desktop. And part of that skill is your ability to figure out what makes it accessible to grannie too.

So it's natural you think about her and what she needs. I surely don't want to undermine those special abilities you've demonstrated. I admire them.

The only caution I feel is this: the first goal is to provide a free and open source system. After that comes usability, ease of use, convenience, protection of users, etc.

Why? I think it's because that's why we are all here, working without a dime, in many cases, just because we see the value of a computer that we can trust.

I know when I sit down at a computer...

[Launchpad Janitor (janitor)]

This bug was fixed in the package firefox-3.0 - 3.0.2+build6+nobinonly-0ubuntu1

---------------
firefox-3.0 (3.0.2+build6+nobinonly-0ubuntu1) intrepid; urgency=low

  Security/Stability update (v3.0.2 build6)
    - see USN-645-1

  [ Fabien Tassin <email address hidden> ]
  * Add a -g/--debug switch to the launcher script to start firefox inside gdb.
    Note that it must be specified first on the command line.
    - update debian/firefox.sh.in
  * Make the branding patch also work for non official branding.
    - update debian/patches/browser_branding.patch

  [ Alexander Sack <email address hidden> ]
  * Fix branding code in debian/rules: a) fix .desktop target filename
    to be unversioned if and only if control ships a meta package name
    - update debian/rules
  * Don't cp debian/$(DESKTOP) debian/$(DEBIAN_APP_NAME).desktop in
    pre-build:: which is a left over from previous branding split
    approaches and unused now.
    - update debian/rules
  * Use APPNAME=`basename $0` in firefox start script; fix bug that would
    trick abrowser into restarting itself through the "firefox" command.
    - debian/firefox.sh.in
  * Fix LP: #269656 - AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO
    YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP; we implement the "Know Your Rights..."
    approach based on the mocked-up's published by mozilla
    http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2008/09/17/mock-ups-available-for-notices-previously-was-eula/
    - add debian/patches/lp269656_know_your_rights.patch
    - update debian/patches/series
  * abrowser Provides: firefox to ease transition of rdepends
    - update debian/control

 -- Alexander Sack <email address hidden> Tue, 23 Sep 2008 17:44:47 +0200

[Launchpad Janitor (janitor)]

This bug was fixed in the package ubufox - 0.6~b1-0ubuntu3

---------------
ubufox (0.6~b1-0ubuntu3) intrepid; urgency=low

  (cherry-pick rev 112 from lp:ubufox)
  * fix LP: #269656 - AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU
    FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP; we backout the infamous firstrun feature
    (reverse apply rev 103)
    - update content/overlay.js
    - update defaults/preferences/ubufox.js
    - remove content/mozeula.html

  * fix LP: #272772: packages that Depend/Recommend/Suggest firefox
    (meta-package) must alternatively Depend/Recommend/Suggest abrowser
    - update debian/control

  (cherry-pick rev 113 from lp:ubufox)
  * set all translations for startup.homepage_override_url and
    startup.homepage_welcome_url to about:blank; this prevents firstrun
    and milestone pages to appear
    - update locale/*/ubufox.properties

  (cherry-pick rev 114 from lp:ubufox)
  * HOMEPAGE_ONLINE now points to ubuntu 8.10 release startpage
    - update content/startpage.html

  (cherry-pick rev 115 from lp:ubufox)
  * dont make alternate plugin binding break flashblock; our
    bindings are not \!important anymore
    - update content/alternatePluginsBinding.css

 -- Alexander Sack <email address hidden> Tue, 23 Sep 2008 17:48:53 +0200

[nullack (nullack)]

To label trademarks in the same bucket as copyright is a strawman argument that's a very slippery slope.

Instead of restricting users, trademarks protect users from abuse by providing a consistent user experience associated with a brand. It has been lucky that the free software projects without trademarks have not had a major upset by failing to comprehend the importance of names and brands and how that could be abused by people with malicious intent.

[Mark Shuttleworth (sabdfl)]

Remco wrote:
> Trademark is, like copyright and patents, an "intellectual property",
> designed to restrict other people. It's not in the spirit of free
> software to be bound by any of these.
Remco, the GPL specifically constrains what you can do with code, using
copyright law. It's easy to confuse "do whatever you want" with the
carefully constructed, and enforced, freedoms in free software, but they
really are different things. Free software is not a carte blanche to use
other people's work however you want.

> The same is true for the Firefox code. If we use the nameless version
> and build our own brand, we use free software. If we use Firefox®, we
> aren't using free software, since the license of the branded binary is
> non-free.
>
No, the license is NOT non-free. The GPLv3 explicitly mentions
trademarks and says that it is reasonable to ask people to use a
different name for the results of their modifications while still
protecting the essential freedoms of Free Software.

> Mozilla Firefox is absolutely free... except for the trademark. You are
> completely free to change the code, but you're not allowed to change
> stuff if Mozilla doesn't want you to. To keep Mozilla happy, you have to
> compromise by allowing this friendly notice, and whatever Mozilla may
> want in the future. Basically, Mozilla is an "additional terms
> wildcard".
>
No, if we want to use the Firefox brand, then we must work with Mozilla,
and that's reasonable. If we don't want to use the brand, they have
kindly given us lots of rights to the code they have so lovingly produced.

> I don't like this any more than anyone. I want to use Firefox, but I
> also want to use software that is not restricted by outsiders. The
> Firefox code and Firefox® are two different products with two different
> licenses. The one is free, but undesirable. The other is bound by
> Mozilla's wishes, but a strong brand. It's a lose lose situation. Except
> if Mozilla relinquishes the Firefox trademark, which is unlikely.
>
I feel differently about this. I'm enormously grateful for the work
Mozilla does in giving free software platforms like Linux and Ubuntu a
world-class browser. I'm grateful that we can get access to the very
powerful and meaningful brand - Firefox - and confident that we can work
with Mozilla to make the terms of that access reasonable. To me, it's
important to find a way to respect the wishes of the people that
actually build free software applications. That's not always possible,
and in those cases we want to be gracious about our differences.

How about you? Are you appreciative of Mozilla's work? Do you think it's
reasonable to want to work with them, where we can? Do you contribute a
lot to Mozilla? Do you think it's right to ignore the major contributor
of a big body of work, and even berate them for wanting to create a
strong brand? Do you think the things they are actually asking for here,
now that we've been through this process of engagement with them, are
unreasonable? Or are you simply objecting to the idea that you might
have to work WITH someone instead of just doing what you want?

Sometimes, I think in the free software world we have attitudes t...

[Mark Shuttleworth (sabdfl)]

Remco wrote:
> Why do you think Ubuntu is not called "Ubuntu Linux"? The trademark has
> been removed from the name.
>
No, that has nothing to do with it. Our packages use "linux" in the
name. If Linus wanted (or the Linux Foundation, I think) then they could
ask us to change them, or stop using the name.

We call the distribution "Ubuntu" and not "Ubuntu Linux" because the
things we care most about are sufficiently well described by that one word.

Mark

[Mark Shuttleworth (sabdfl)]

pj wrote:
> Firefox also *offers optional* web site information services, such as
> blah blah....
>
> Instead of:
>
> Firefox also *uses* web site information services....
>
Looks like an improvement to me, I'll pass on the suggestion to Mozilla
folks who may not be watching this thread.

> On grannie, though, I think you may want to think from a different
> standpoint. I acknowledge your amazing skill and energy at mobilizing
> and spreading acceptance of GNU/Linux on the desktop. And part of that
> skill is your ability to figure out what makes it accessible to grannie
> too.
>
> So it's natural you think about her and what she needs. I surely don't
> want to undermine those special abilities you've demonstrated. I admire
> them.
>
> The only caution I feel is this: the first goal is to provide a free
> and open source system. After that comes usability, ease of use,
> convenience, protection of users, etc.
>
Yes, I agree. It's that feeling of being part of something profoundly
different, and liberating, that makes us tick. And the "make users life
easier" theme is a very slippery slope, that can be used to justify the
whole shebang - Skype, Flash, you name it. Walking the fine line between
selling out and actively furthering the cause of free software through
some pragmatism is possibly the toughest thing we do, and I don't think
we can claim to be supernaturally insightful or good at it, we have to
question both our current and sometimes our past positions, regularly.

The fundamentalist "live free or die" approach sounds much easier,
though the problem there is that it's hard to agree on the precise
definition of "fundamentally free" - look at the disagreements between
the DFSG and the FSF on that front. We have Debian and gNewSense and a
few others, all of whom define themselves as being quite fundamentalist
and all of whom have different definitions! So we could adopt a position
of absolutism on this in an attempt to make our lives easier, and then
still find ourselves in tough debates with other folks that have equally
absolute views, just slightly different ones :-)

Mark

[Creak (romain-failliot)]

2008/9/24 Mark Shuttleworth <email address hidden>

> No, if we want to use the Firefox brand, then we must work with Mozilla,
> and that's reasonable. If we don't want to use the brand, they have
> kindly given us lots of rights to the code they have so lovingly produced.
>

I do more and more agree with you Mark. A company has the right to preserve
its image (aka brand, logo, ...).
I just wonder why Debian created Iceweasel then? I know Debian are real
zealots about the free software, but I also trust them on this subject. So
I'm a bit confuse here...
Maybe I'm wrong, but I understood that they did few Debian-specific
modifications. But as long as they modified Firefox, they can't reuse the
name.
If I'm right until then, why don't they send their modifications to Mozilla?
Mozilla refused?
Imagine you have an Ubuntu-specific feature to add to Firefox. Mozilla
doesn't want it for some reason... What's your choice? Abandon your
modification or change the name?

I'm not trying to make a point here, I'm just trying to understand a bit
better all the consequences :)

[Mark Shuttleworth (sabdfl)]

Creak wrote:
> Maybe I'm wrong, but I understood that they did few Debian-specific
> modifications. But as long as they modified Firefox, they can't reuse the
> name.
> If I'm right until then, why don't they send their modifications to Mozilla?
> Mozilla refused?
>
I wasn't part of that decision, so I'm only repeating what I heard,
which is that Debian simply preferred not to be obliged to discuss their
changes with Mozilla. I don't think there was any specific change which
Debian wanted and Mozilla felt was problematic, it was more that the
idea of having to maintain an ongoing relationship was not attractive to
the specific developers involved at Debian. And that's a perfectly
reasonable position, too.

> Imagine you have an Ubuntu-specific feature to add to Firefox. Mozilla
> doesn't want it for some reason... What's your choice? Abandon your
> modification or change the name?
>
Yes, pretty much. But so far we've always managed to agree. We always
have the right and the ability to switch to the abrowser package which
we've created, but we prefer to engage as long as possible, we benefit
from the Firefox brand and I hope Mozilla benefits from the exposure we
bring.

Mark

[Prateek Karandikar (prateek.karandikar)]

I must admit that I had not given much thought to naming and trademarks in free software earlier. I'm wondering if the situation with Firefox is any different from other big names which are trademarked, like KDE, GNOME, Linux, or OpenOffice. I have not heard similar controversies about them in the context of Ubuntu or Debian or any other distribution. The presence of the anti-phishing service is one difference, but is that it? Is there a reason why Firefox gets talked about more? Is there any distribution which has unbranded versions of the above mentioned products, to gain the flexibility of modifying them?

This has been said earlier, but I'd like to reiterate how awesome it is that anyone is welcome to take part in a discussion in which Mark himself is participating. :-)

[Remco (remco47)]

To Mark, all,

Well, I have been making too much a point of this. The reason for that is that the replies I got did not show they understood my main problem with the situation. No, I don't misunderstand trademark; trademark does impose limits on the Firefox® product -- and Firefox® is a different product from Iceweasel/Icecat/abrowser or "the code". (I use the ®-character to distinguish between the two products if necessary.)

I am perfectly OK with using whatever variation of Firefox myself, and I do think Mozilla makes a beautiful browser. I do think Mozilla is a "Good Thing" in the scheme of things, but I'm not so happy with the consequences of their trademark. I'm not against trademarks as a whole, but it has its problems.

And the reason I'd like to see Firefox® in restricted, is only because the branded product is more restricted than free software. It's a matter of sound classification, knowing what you get, so the user can choose his degree of freedom orthodoxity (is that even a word?).

For full disclosure:
* I did suggest earlier in this thread that we could switch to Epiphany. This was before the EULA had disappeared. This was mostly fueled by technical reasons. It integrates better by design.
* I also suggested that it's quite OK for services (free or non-free) to be available in Firefox. Freedom is a choice of the user as far as I'm concerned. And at some point free software has to interface with a non-free world.
* I'm not a developer of free software. I'm just a user, bug reporter and a computer science student planning on making a lot of free software in the future.
* Recovering from minor surgery, I might not have had the best mood ever. Sorry about that. ;-)

As far as I'm concerned, the matter is closed. Well, fixed.

Remco

PS. as long as we're admitting fandoms... big fan of y'all, Mark, pj, and the whole community! :) The fact that the hierarchy of communication is completely flat makes it very exciting to be here!

[Brian C (brianwc)]

Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
> I wasn't part of that decision, so I'm only repeating what I heard,
> which is that Debian simply preferred not to be obliged to discuss their
> changes with Mozilla. I don't think there was any specific change which
> Debian wanted and Mozilla felt was problematic, it was more that the
> idea of having to maintain an ongoing relationship was not attractive to
> the specific developers involved at Debian. And that's a perfectly
> reasonable position, too.

That's not accurate. There were at least two sticking points where what
Mozilla insisted upon simply conflicted with the Debian Free Software
Guidelines. It was not that Debian "simply preferred" not to work with
Mozilla on an ongoing basis.

The two major problems were: 1) The Firefox (etc) logos have a copyright
license that is not DFSG-free, so Debian would not be able to use those
without a change in those licenses;[1] and 2) while Mozilla was willing
to make a Debian-specific exemption that entitled Debian to make
modifications to the code and still call the products
Firefox/Thunderbird/etc., Debian-specific licenses also violate DFSG #8,
because Debian has to be able to pass down to its users all the rights
that it has.[2] Debian cannot allow special exemptions that apply only
to Debian or this would leave its users in the lurch with less freedom
than Debian itself has.

One would think that Ubuntu, the organization that arguably benefits
from this Debian policy more than anyone else, would at least be
cognizant of it.

Brian

[1] See, e.g.,
http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/identity-guidelines/firefox.html
[2] http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines

[Ante Karamatić (ivoks)]

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 18:19:24 -0000
Brian C <email address hidden> wrote:

> Debian cannot allow special exemptions that
> apply only to Debian or this would leave its users in the lurch with
> less freedom than Debian itself has.

<rant mode>

Yet again, Debian doesn't allow me to create a t-shirt with 'Debian
Official' logo on it. On the other hand, Debian developers do have that right.

</rant mode>

[Mark Shuttleworth (sabdfl)]

Brian, no offense was intended, and thank you for your clarification.

I think we've pretty much exhausted this thread, folks. We're starting
to repeat ourselves.

It's been a very interesting discussion for the most part, thanks to all
who participated. No animals were harmed in the conduct of this debate,
and the final result is quite reasonable. I expect we'll have variations
on the theme crop up in future, and I hope we can maintain a spirit of
constructive discussion.

Mark

[unimatrix9 (jochemscheelings)]

Its been an interesting discussion, thanks for all those involved.

[FrogEatFrog (frogeatfrog)]

Ante Karamatić wrote:
> <rant mode>
>
> Yet again, Debian doesn't allow me to create a t-shirt with 'Debian
> Official' logo on it. On the other hand, Debian developers do have that right.
>
> </rant mode>

Note how silly a scenario you had to create in order to make your point. According to Debian's own logo policy[1], use of their "Official Use" logo is pretty strictly controlled, but their "Open Use" logo is under a BSD-like license (no warranty, no endorsement implied). Guess which one is exclusively used in the actual Debian distribution? That's right, the Open Use logo. Debian is nothing if not consistent (sometimes to the extreme), and they do not put anything in their software that you are not allowed to use under the same terms they themselves follow. In fact, I have not seen the Official Use logo used *anywhere* in many years, making the Open Use logo the de facto logo of the Debian project, so complaints about their trademark policy are misguided..

Back on topic, thanks to Mark and everybody from Mozilla to coming to as reasonable a solution on this issue as you could. :)

[1] http://www.debian.org/logos/

[kafpauzo (kafpauzo)]

I think two things need to be added.

First: All this should be easy to find under Help -> About.

Second: As I understand it, when the service is turned on, Firefox contacts Google once every half hour (or some such) to update the blacklist. This should be mentioned.

By contacting Google, the browser informs Google about our browsing-time habits. This lets Google add some more details to its already vast repository of statistics on our habits, interests and other privacy-sensitive data.

Some people feel that it’s risky for our civil liberties that such huge amounts of private information gets concentrated at one entity. Because of this, such things must always be told very openly. People have a right to know about these things and decide for themselves. It may be unimportant when it's only used for serving ads, but important for someone who feels politically persecuted. That's for each person to decide. The information on Firefox doing this must be very openly available.

The text should mention whether the only identifying information in these contacts is the user's IP address, or whether there's a more uniquely identifying cookie or some such.

In fact I wish that instead Firefox contacted Canonical or Mozilla to update the blacklist, and Canonical or Mozilla got the list from Google. Privacy information should be spread out among many different entities, not concentrated at one entity.

[jackb_guppy (jackb-guppy)]

Another piece of information that needs to clear, in accepting the current push of FireFox, will it reset the flags that are turned off, forcing you to agree to something you have already not agreed to?

This whole problem has been handled backwards. First forcing EULA, to get a hidden by default license in front of user who does not realize they were pre-agreed to service by default. What a good way to open.

[SilverWave (silverwave)]

The Frankenphishing Service.

>Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
>pj wrote:
>> Since Mark is asking for input on the service, I will tell you that the first thing I do is
>> turn off antiphishing services, along with every other thing that tends to track my
>> surfing. I turn off Javascript and cookies too, for example, so I'm definitely not the
>> average person in my habits. I turn stuff on as needed, clean up, and turn it off
>> again.
>>
>In the community of folks who are very aware of the sort of abuse that
>goes on, being conservative about JS and cookies isn't unusual. Those
>are definite attack vectors on one's online identity and privacy.

>Out of curiosity, would you prefer that cookies and javascript be
>disabled in the default case for Ubuntu, too? If the argument is that
>anti-phishing might be used to track your surfing, like cookies and JS,
>and therefor it should be turned off, would it not also be consistent to
>want JS and cookies disabled by default? We certainly take the view that
>we (Ubuntu) are entrusted with our users security, so this would be
>worth exploring. My gut feel would be though that most people would say
>"I'll turn that off for myself where I'm concerned, but I understand
>that the default should for JS to be switched on".

The bug is in the way the antiphishing services works...

The old implementation was a choice between checking with google for each site you visited and downloading a blacklist that did its checking without calling home to google.

I had no problem with the second approach but then things changed and you now get the Frankenphishing service which does the "download the blacklist file and check thing" BUT if it gets a hit it then does a phone home to google to double check in realtime.

I would say that the downloading of the blacklist and local anti-phishing checking with no phone home should be the default.

No privacy concerns with this.

The problem is the phoning home to check thing.

So this whole problem with the anti-phishing services is just bad implementation.

1. The default should be that a file is downloaded every day\hour and this is used to check for bad sites.
No phone home or anything.

2. On first hit of a phishing site, ask for user to accept Terms an Conditions of the service.

3. Also ask if user wants to start checking with google in realtime or not (point out the privacy issues).

[blackest_knight (blackest-knight)]

version 3.03 of firefox is repeatedly showing me this eula, which isn't really an eula, I don't care about it appearing the first time but its starting to really get on my nerves since its showing me this repeatedly!

What kind of idiot decided this was needed, surely the about item on the help menu is enough, if necessary add a button to allow the user to read the whole thing if they want.

Firefox is googles customer, not me. Larry Page and Sergey Brin.pay for firefox, I don't.

It's all a bit Anal-Retentive this Eula thing any way, so stop doing it! Google wants as many people using FireFox as possible but this showing the freaking eula every time firefox starts is annoying the hell out of me, not only that its embarrassing, I don't want to be grouped in with a bunch of anal retentitive losers because thats what it looks like, every time you fling that Eula in users faces, its not big its not clever and someone should have known better.

Firefox needs an update sharpish or another browser is getting installed!

[evildonkey (theevildonkey)]

Lol you said anal

----
----
This email was sent from a Palm Centro

-----Original Message-----

From: blackest_knight <email address hidden>
Subj: [Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2008 11:44 am
Size: 1K
To: <email address hidden>

version 3.03 of firefox is repeatedly showing me this eula, which isn't
really an eula, I don't care about it appearing the first time but its
starting to really get on my nerves since its showing me this
repeatedly!

What kind of idiot decided this was needed, surely the about item on the help menu is enough, if necessary add a button to allow the user to read the whole thing if they want.

Firefox is googles customer, not me. Larry Page and Sergey Brin.pay for firefox, I don't.

It's all a bit Anal-Retentive this Eula thing any way, so stop doing it!
Google wants as many people using FireFox as possible but this showing
the freaking eula every time firefox starts is annoying the hell out of
me, not only that its embarrassing, I don't want to be grouped in with a
bunch of anal retentitive losers because thats what it looks like, every
time you fling that Eula in users faces, its not big its not clever and
someone should have known better.

Firefox needs an update sharpish or another browser is getting
installed!

--
AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656
You received this bug notification because you are a direct subscriber
of the bug.

--- message truncated ---

[Daniël H. (daan-is-here)]

released

[Laurens V. (laurens73)]

Sorry to kick this obsoleted discussion. Unfortunatly I have to admit that I too, have quit using Ubuntu. To be specific: Xubuntu. I am not the only one who quit using an Ubuntu distro. My wife who's a dedicated KDE user quit Kubuntu for the reason Canonical chose KDE4 in stead of offering the choice to use KDE3 or KDE4. Xubuntu (tried Jaunty on a customer's pc) has a great look and feel, the way installing it, using it is fantastic, but the feeling to agree with an EULA of Firefox, the knowledge my machine would become unstable after a distro upgrade made me decide me to go back to Debian, including my advices to others. I use a stable Lenny release with the advantages of the Squeeze release, thinking back on the time using Kubuntu / Xubuntu wich worked perfectly on the most recent machines (also in professional ways) but doing a distro upgrade had a 50% chance of succeeding while its origin Debian succeeds on 95% of the installs. When Canonical would change its policy in periods of distributing (*)Ubuntu letting the older installs being compatible with their first oncoming releases I (and a lot of my customers) would be some of the many to be returning to (*)Ubuntu. Canonical is doing a great job, but the product has to be workable over a longer time than it is today. I'd like to see the (*)Ubuntu distro's being upgraded as freely as other distro's do, slowly and stable changing to the next without loss of data and/or stability.

[Rafael Belmonte (eaglescreen)]

To Laurens V.
You do not need to accept any Eula in Ubuntu, you can use abrowser as the same way you use iceweasel on Debian.
You do not need to upgrade your system each six months, you can use LTS versions only, which is almost equal to use Debian stable.