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
  it clear it's unofficial) with a different (but recognisable,
  somewhat similar) logo (so we keep the two associated/related but
  distinct).  This is similar to having the Debian open use and
  official use logos.  That way Debian/Ubuntu users can have free
  artwork (if they want to) (and backported bugfixes etc.) while
  keeping the connection to Mozilla, without making that connection
  too strong (as it would be obviously unofficial).  This seems to me
  the best compromise between idealism and pragmatism.


- Felix

-- 
Felix C. Stegerman <email address hidden>                  http://obfusk.net
~ "Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable from a feature."
~   -- R. Kulawiec
~ vim: set ft=mail tw=70 sw=2 sts=2 et: