What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
144 Comments
- DomZy, on 09/16/2008, -2/+77"The Debian flavor of Firefox is called IceWeasel, and it replaces the Firefox logo art with an image of a weasel humping a globe."
Gotta love open source - jbus, on 09/16/2008, -5/+79For those claiming this is whining... This isn't just about people that don't want to see a EULA. Ubuntu (Canonical, developers and users) have to to protect the Ubuntu brand before they worry about protecting the Mozilla brand. There are some very real legal issues when EULAs are thrown in at runtime (which is what Mozilla has dictated). Any company wanting to deploy Ubuntu will be put in the tricky legal position where their employees are being asked to agree to Mozilla's EULA on behalf of the company. That means they will probably need have lawyers review the ramifications of allowing their employees to accept these EULAs. Can you imagine if every piece of software did this? It would take an army of lawyers just to determine if it's safe to deploy Ubuntu. This is a serious matter that could be a hindrance to future corporate deployment of Ubuntu. I'm sure Mozilla can work with Canonical to come up with a better solution that doesn't sacrifice Ubuntu's brand in order to protect Mozilla's brand.
- iNoles, on 09/16/2008, -1/+43Google Chrome has EULA too.
- TeacherOfHeroes, on 09/16/2008, -0/+26@smotpoker
AFAIK, the EULAs purpose is to inform/enforce Mozilla's rights over their Firefox trademarks. De-branding it means that Mozilla has no trademarks involved, and thus no standing to demand any kind of EULA. At that point, Canonical/Ubuntu can do what they want with it, since it is still Free software. - TeacherOfHeroes, on 09/16/2008, -2/+26I don't think that the inconvenience is what has got people rankled, but rather the imposition of restrictions by Mozilla, and/or Canonical's acquiescence to their demands.
- Sillywombat, on 09/16/2008, -4/+26To see an image of the iceweasel logo humping the world:
http://dugnet.com/klown/pics/iceweasel2.png - brisbin33, on 09/16/2008, -0/+20when i first installed arch a few months ago i was surprised to find my first encounter with these "re-branded" browsers. the only FF in arch's repos is a re-branded version. it shows "gran paradiso" everywhere that it used to say "firefox" and it has a generic globe icon. other than that, NO difference. all my add-ons work just fine. and if i wanted to go through the steps of "branding" it, the instructions are there on the wiki.
on a free and opensource platform, all default programs _must_ be free and opensource, completely devoid of any EULA's. if mozilla wants to play hardball, just install a brand-less ubufox (as someone else suggested) version of FF by default, and put the branded FF in restricted or multiverse and let the user _choose_ to close down their system. it just doesn't make sense to do it any other way. the first thing i do on a fresh install is grab mp3 support, libdvd*, and the nvidia drivers; add a branded firefox to that list if you so choose. not a big deal... - trogdoor, on 09/16/2008, -1/+20By the way, this only happens in Intrepid. In 8.04 ( the current stable version of Ubuntu ) no such thing happens.
- crownedgriffin, on 09/16/2008, -9/+28Oh noes! Not a EULA no one will read anyway!
- commentbot, on 09/16/2008, -6/+23Ubuntu should rebrand the browser and while they're at it, redirect hits of the "Google" search box so that the money generated from ads goes to the Ubuntu team instead of the Mozilla Corporation. I would do that :)
- magamiako, on 09/16/2008, -14/+30I'm not sure why anyone is even bothering arguing this.
Fact: Mozilla has it's name and brand to protect.
Fact: You can use Firefox without referencing Mozilla at all.
Fact: If you choose to use the Mozilla and Firefox branding, you abide by Mozilla's rules for the software usage.
Fact: You can download the source and re-brand Firefox as your own browser, removing all references to the software, and are no longer bound by Mozilla's rules.
If it looks like a duck and talks like a duck.....
Why are people demonizing Mozilla over this? They are not saying that you can't use Firefox without agreeing to their EULA. They are setting terms for using their NAME only. That's it. - Vadi0, on 09/16/2008, -9/+25You realize it's nice to have no EULA's until you're greeted with one.
- TeacherOfHeroes, on 09/16/2008, -2/+16I can't tell if you're trolling or not, so I'll assume you simply don't understand what a EULA can (and often does) entail, and how it would impact Free software...
---
I agree that this reaction is a little over the top, but EULAs are almost unheard of in typical Linux distros, so its a little jolting to see one on something like Firefox. Its not the nagging presence of a EULA on its own that people are objecting to, though - its the restrictions that those EULAs seek to impose.
Users don't have to think: "I want Free - Opensource - Eula-less software..." in order for the EULA to be a problem, all they have to think is: "I want Free Software...", and the EULA is already interfering with that by imposing restrictions on use of the programme or accompanying (multi)media.
In short, they're not demanding more and more different things, they're merely defending the things that they already have. - ssmithy, on 09/16/2008, -4/+18"Cool" Linux guys don't give up that easily. That's why you're not one.
- fuckingusername, on 09/16/2008, -13/+27 um I just click ok
- TeacherOfHeroes, on 09/16/2008, -0/+11If you want an EULA-less web browser in Linux, just about any other Free (capital 'F') browser will do the trick. Epiphany, Konqueror, IceWeasel etc...
Running a Windows web browser under Wine (which AFAIK is the only way that it can be done now, or in the immediate future) is hardly the ideal solution for most Linux users. - inactive, on 09/16/2008, -0/+11You realize that comment makes sense until a closer reading reveals it makes no sense.
- OneLess, on 09/16/2008, -0/+11Software with EULAs is not Free software. No whining involved.
- peterbye, on 09/16/2008, -3/+14and IMO the confusion that arises from this is damaging to both Debian and Mozilla
- TeacherOfHeroes, on 09/16/2008, -0/+10"No one is forcing any linux users to install Firefox."
Actually, since Firefox is preinstalled on Ubuntu as the default browser, they kind of are - if you want Ubuntu, you also get Firefox. Its status as the default browser is why this is an issue. - hugolp, on 09/16/2008, -2/+12Yes, its not just clicking. Its accepting an EULA, wich implies legal consecuences.
@TecaherOfHeroes, its Mozilla demand. Ubuntu had to comply. Canonical has nothing to do with it. - bradleyland, on 09/16/2008, -2/+11Good idea. Let's create an arms race amongst open source developers. The OSS community has enough of a challenge ahead of themselves without adding more infighting to the mix. Canonical will work something out with Mozilla. A resolution is in both of their best interests.
- scabbers, on 09/16/2008, -0/+9I don't think they can do that under the licence.
- kragil, on 09/16/2008, -0/+9Fixed:
Mozilla Re-Thinking Firefox EULA ( http://www.internetnews.com/software/article.php/3 ... ) - lassegs, on 09/16/2008, -3/+11You must be a Windows user. Didnt you know Linux software gives you blowjobs?
- javaroast, on 09/16/2008, -0/+8I love that you used windows commands in that mess. Classic!
- daftman, on 09/16/2008, -2/+10> Fact: Mozilla has it's name and brand to protect.
that's fall under trademark. They already have that covered. EULA has nothing to do with trademark
> Fact: You can use Firefox without referencing Mozilla at all.
It isn't about referencing Mozilla. It's about EULA
> Fact: If you choose to use the Mozilla and Firefox branding, you abide by Mozilla's rules for the software usage.
That defeats the purpose of FREE software. There should be no further restriction upon the user other than those that are already covered by common law and the source code licenses.
> Fact: You can download the source and re-brand Firefox as your own browser, removing all references to the software, and are no longer bound by Mozilla's rules.
Yes you can do that but Shuttleworth doesn't want that to happen
> Why are people demonizing Mozilla over this? They are not saying that you can't use Firefox without agreeing to their EULA. They are setting terms for using their NAME only. That's it.
Because EULA is not trademark. Mozilla can still protect the Firefox brand without using the EULA using simple trademark and copyright law. - magamiako, on 09/16/2008, -5/+12Ice Weasel.
- buckrogers1965, on 09/16/2008, -0/+72 clicks? What if all 50,000 pieces of software installed in an ubuntu system required a eula? That is 100,000 clicks, and I for one am not playing that game.
Say no to EULA's.
Their brand can be protected other ways. I've never had to agree to a eula when I am using sneakers or drinking a coke. - cawpin, on 09/16/2008, -3/+10Canonical is only involved to the extent that they are trying to get rid of the EULA. Mozilla are the ones demanding it be put in. They should be shot for doing this in open source software.
- inactive, on 09/16/2008, -7/+13But no one is forcing you to use Firefox. If you don't agree with the EULA don't use it. If linux is so ***** awesome, why not just use Konqueror?
- jbus, on 09/16/2008, -1/+7There is already the brandless firefox package in Ubuntu (abrowser), if it comes to removing Firefox from the default install, abrowser will be used.
IceWeasel will not be used on Ubuntu. As the article states Mark Shuttleworth feels this name mocks Mozilla and will not approve of it. I agree, it sounds childish IMHO and a name like "Ubuntu Web Browser" would serve much better. - FuzzyCat, on 09/16/2008, -0/+6
People like you are called... what's the word.. oh yeah "*****".
For any linux n00bs do not do as this idiot suggests:
sudo = do this with root (super user) permissions
rm = ReMove
-rf = Recursive and Force
/ = the root of your hard disk
ie it will remove everything from / trashing your machine. - daverod, on 09/16/2008, -0/+6Gran Paradiso was actually Mozilla's internal, working name for the browser before it was formally released.
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox3/Gran_Paradiso - inactive, on 09/16/2008, -1/+7They can add "License" to the help menu and I wouldn't mind. Popping up EULA upon installation or running for the first time means Ubuntu must change browser.
Phillip. - FasterGun, on 09/16/2008, -1/+6sudo get me a sandwitch
- daftman, on 09/16/2008, -1/+6> If you wish to use the Mozilla name, trademark, and branding--you abide by Mozilla's rules for doing so. There is nothing evil going on here.
I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about, at least about trademark. Their trademark is already protected by trademark law. Click-wrap EULA is a waste of time and is usually use for other purposes such as void of warranties.
> it's not evil, it's not malicious, Mozilla isn't preventing people from using the SOFTWARE, only the BRAND which is attached to that software.
It's not about the BRAND. It's about the END USER LICENCE AGREEMENT (EULA) which can easily be changed by Mozilla at any time to include other clause that restrict users. That's not how Free software work.
> It's stupidly petty BS by both the Ubuntu community and the developers.
Actually, it's more ignorance and propagation of it by ill-informed digg users. - captainstumpy, on 09/16/2008, -0/+5Yet at the same time your wanting to use Ubuntu has nothing to do with the topic. It's about the spirit of FOSS and whether or not it's _right_ to include something like this in a GNU Linux distro without compromising those beliefs. I wasn't one of those who buried you but I can see why the people who did, did.
I know it's not a big deal to just click past an EULA you'll never see again, but people are missing the point: Why should the FOSS movement make an exception for EULA's now, simply because Firefox is such a widely used browser? It's just not kosher with that set of principles. Ultimately we have a decision over whether or not we use software that confronts us with an EULA, but it's not right to force that on people who use FOSS for a reason.
The only reason people are complaining about this now is because Ubuntu is such a popular distro. I don't really care as long as I still have a choice. :P - jmichaelx, on 09/16/2008, -0/+5What a moronic post.
First of all, as noted repeatedly in this thread, Firefox IS free software. Secondly, there are numerous free browsers out there.
We already 'offer our own'. - TeacherOfHeroes, on 09/16/2008, -0/+4"once you offer your own, then you can complain about firefox"
Isn't that the whole point of opensource? that they *did* offer their own?
Even if you argue that Mozilla Corp made Firefox, and not the community, there are still other FOSS browsers like Konqueror/KHTML, which was the original code base for WebKit. - init100, on 09/16/2008, -0/+4"What a way to make trolls look like trolls"
Corrected it for ya. :) - burkhartmj, on 09/16/2008, -1/+5Way to make FOSS look like elitist pricks.
- jbus, on 09/16/2008, -0/+4The difference is that Opera is not installed by default, Firefox is. No one is saying that Mozilla can't have a EULA. The concern is that if Mozilla is going to force users to accept the EULA at runtime, then Firefox should not be installed as the default browser and should reside in restricted or multiverse repos. Of course anyone that wants to use the Firefox branded browser would still be able to easily install for users that want to use it, but it wouldn't create a tricky legal situation by being installed as the default browser.
- silverbulletky, on 09/16/2008, -1/+5He knows that what he's doing is really wrong but yet he just can't stop
- JohnFlux, on 09/16/2008, -0/+3No, Fedora did not resolve the issue. Fedora got a _once off_ agreement with the Mozilla foundation to _temporarily_ show that as the default homepage. This is a temporary solution until Fedora and Mozilla can come to a more permanent solution. Mozilla wants Fedora to show a popup EULA in the next release of Fedora.
- Vektuz, on 09/16/2008, -1/+4The problem is that nobody actually wants to go the IceWeasel route. People recognise Firefox and they want Firefox. Having a non-free licence, or even an ugly EULA that CAPITALIZES ALL THE THINGS YOU CANNOT DO pop up in an environment where no such existed before, upsets the advocates of free software, and makes the Canonical brand weaker, especially in the corporate market where every such alarming popup has to be reviewed by legal.
However, removing it entirely and replacing it with IceWeasel would confuse and upset possible NEW desktop users and thus would weaken both the Canonical brand AND the Mozilla brand.
So its really in their best interest to work with the distros to solve this. - brisbin33, on 09/16/2008, -0/+3thanks for the info. i should have included that in my original post.
from: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Firefox
"The Firefox package in Arch Linux is compiled without official branding. This means that when you start Firefox it will use a blue globe for its icon and will be named after its release series' codename. This has to be done because a distribution may use the name "Firefox" and its artwork only if there are no unofficial modifications"
point being, ubuntu could do much the same and keep everybody [free and] happy. - Eevee, on 09/16/2008, -0/+3When one of your OS's biggest selling points is based entirely in principle, principle becomes a big deal. Not everything important is an immediate catastrophe.
- dholbert, on 09/16/2008, -3/+6Ars Technica concludes the article with: "... it might be wiser for Mozilla to instead include a section in the first-run web page that explains in clear language the rights granted to end users..."
Funny - that's almost exactly what already happens with the "offending" EULA. In Ubuntu 8.10, when you run Firefox for the first time, one additional FirstRun tab is opened to show the EULA text. That's it.
Despite what some people seem to think (and what I initially thought), there is *no* dialog / popup here AFAIK -- it's just an additional FirstRun tab. (The screenshot in the article is probably from a .tar.gz build obtained at http://getfirefox.com -- those official builds *do* have a popup-EULA, but that's a completely different discussion.) - JohnFlux, on 09/16/2008, -0/+3You are mistaken. This whole debate is because Mozilla has just demanded that Ubuntu changes it, and pops up a EULA that the user _must_ agree to to run firefox.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 147 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 