Battle Brews Over Firefox In Ubuntu 8.10

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Battle Brews Over Firefox In Ubuntu 8.10

Firefox, what's not to love about this open-source web browser? Well, a number of users following the development work on Ubuntu 8.10 (the Intrepid Ibex) are feeling rather outraged over Mozilla Firefox 3.0.2 and later. In the latest Ubuntu packages, Firefox requires an EULA (End-User License Agreement) be accepted the first time you launch the browser...

http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=NjcxOA

[Vadi]

Hrm, 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.

[DanL]

If the heads of Ubuntu have any sense, they'll switch to Iceweasel/Icedove.

[yoshi314]

People are used to it.the ones that use windows often are. others - not quite.

i thought for a while i accidentally installed windows on my box when i saw that eula box :]

[Vadi]

If the heads of Ubuntu have any sense, they'll switch to Iceweasel/Icedove.

If they have any sense, they won't do that. "Ubuntu Web Browser" as someone suggested on launchpad makes much more sense.

[puelocesar]

Common just press OK on the damn EULA and fuckoff... There are SO many things to care about Ubuntu rather than removing a EULA that opens only on the first time you install the software...

[bruno08]

How many read the EULA?

Choose your way - choose your path:

User friendlyness -or- Brand protection

[Vadi]

It's a brand protection fail, because you can protect the brand without having an EULA.

See Canonical's Ubuntu brand. They protect it well, without an eula.

[puelocesar]

"User friendlyness -or- Brand protection"

I have to disagree, placing something like "Iceweasel" instead of Firefox would be very bad to the end user, because Firefox is a known brand, and people like Firefox. When these people that know Firefox but doesn't know these trademark issues install Ubuntu will just look and say: "What the hell is this iceweasel?" and even if these people understands later that it's just firefox with other name, the initial impact will be negative for Ubuntu.

AND, in other hand, many extensions will just not install if you are using something with a name different then Firefox. Downloading a .jar, unpacking, changing the version string in a xml, packing again, and installing manually isn't a good thing for everyone...

[Zhick]

Seriously, the Ubuntu-guys are already taking everything else from debian, why not also use iceweasel?
Oh and:
Firefox, what's not to love about this open-source web browser?
GTK. GTK is ugly, especially the file-save dialog. Thanks god they've picked up work on a qt-port again.

[Vadi]

Because Iceweasel is one dumb idea that nobody knows about: http://www.google.com/trends?q=firefox%2C+iceweasel

(yes, you might not see it on the graph)

For comparison, even ubuntu doesn't scale up: http://www.google.com/trends?q=firefox%2C+iceweasel%2C+ubuntu&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0

[he_the_great]

"User friendlyness -or- Brand protection"

I have to disagree, placing something like "Iceweasel" instead of Firefox would be very bad to the end user, because Firefox is a known brand, and people like Firefox. When these people that know Firefox but doesn't know these trademark issues install Ubuntu will just look and say: "What the hell is this iceweasel?" and even if these people understands later that it's just firefox with other name, the initial impact will be negative for Ubuntu.

AND, in other hand, many extensions will just not install if you are using something with a name different then Firefox. Downloading a .jar, unpacking, changing the version string in a xml, packing again, and installing manually isn't a good thing for everyone...

Yes name branding is very important when you are trying to convince someone to switch and the best you can come up with is, hey they use Firefox. Yes, people are going to go, "WTF, where is Firefox its cross-platform why don't I see it in the repos." I did the same when it left my Debian (or before it left, but the upgrade was to Iceweasel). The solution is have Iceweasel by default and keep Firefox and their EULA in the repo for download.

I have several extensions installed, and the only ones I've had a problem with came from Google, and it was prevented long before Iceweasel tried to install it (ie a javascript check as to what browser I was using). Looking at the packaging information, the GUID is what identifies the app, I do not know if Iceweasel changes this.

[he_the_great]

Because Iceweasel is one dumb idea that nobody knows about: http://www.google.com/trends?q=firefox%2C+iceweasel

(yes, you might not see it on the graph)

For comparison, even ubuntu doesn't scale up: http://www.google.com/trends?q=firefox%2C+iceweasel%2C+ubuntu&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0

How is it dumb? I don't have a EULA to click yes to. Who needs to search for Iceweasel? I already know it is Firefox and so everything I'm interested in would be under a search for Firefox and not Iceweasel.

[bruno08]

"User friendlyness -or- Brand protection"

I have to disagree, placing something like "Iceweasel" instead of Firefox would be very bad<cut>

I didn't mean Ubuntu had to choose, instead I ment the Mozilla crew had to choose their path..

[ethana2]

Rebrand it-- and since you're not under their control anymore, fix the bedanged thing!

Why is the default gui layout so frigging bloated? Mine is:

---------------------
[title bar]
File Edit View History Bookmarks Tools Help (<) (>) (@) (+) (x) [awesome bar]
[tab bar]
content
---------------------

Spreading visually noisy garbage and redundancy out does not lessen it.

[TRS-80]

As a Debian/iceweasel user, all I can do is laugh. The other stupid thing firefox has is "this will void your warranty" on about:config, even when the EULA says you have no warranty.

[ethana2]

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

TRS-80, you nailed it.

[Vadi]

I think that rebranding Firefox to "Ubuntu Web Browser" would be the best course of action. Same with any other open-source programs that decide to act up on branding.

"(OS) (type of program)"

[Kano]

They only need to use iceweasel/icedove from Debian.

[bugmenot]

I think that rebranding Firefox to "Ubuntu Web Browser" [...]
"(OS) (type of program)"
Why put the OS in front of the type? Why not say "Web Browser" or something like this, as gcalctool is called "Calculator" and so on?

[Mithrandir]

It seems that IceWeasel is the most popular choice. 99 for IceWeasel vs -75 for Firefox.
http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/13200/
http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/13201/
http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/13202/

[yotambien]

Debian has undergone the rebranding path time ago, although for more fundamental reasons than people getting annoyed at an EULA (quite rightly, in my opinion). To repeat what others have said, the only thing they have to do, as well as the simplest, is to adopt Iceweasel and move Firefox to contrib or whatever repository.

"Ubuntu Web Browser"...well, you'll realize how ridiculous this is if you think about "Gentoo Web Browser", "Mepis Web Browser" or "FreeBSD Web Browser"...

[sloggerKhan]

Debian has undergone the rebranding path time ago, although for more fundamental reasons than people getting annoyed at an EULA (quite rightly, in my opinion). To repeat what others have said, the only thing they have to do, as well as the simplest, is to adopt Iceweasel and move Firefox to contrib or whatever repository.

"Ubuntu Web Browser"...well, you'll realize how ridiculous this is if you think about "Gentoo Web Browser", "Mepis Web Browser" or "FreeBSD Web Browser"...

I think this is bigger issue than anyone realizes. The next thing you know, there'll be a big EULA every times you launch any program for the first time and it'll be annoying and defeat part of the point of using linux. Nobody's gonna read that damn thing, all it will do is annoy people. Yeah, fine, they have certain rights w/ regard to firefox, its logo, etc. Well, they don't go away if everyone is inconvenience by mindlessly clicking yes like a zombie.

[energyman]

I present you Newbie McWindows. He is a windows user. He knows firefox.
He heard about that ubuntu stuff and decides to try it.

After some little problems, he get it installed.

'I need a browser' thinks Newbie. 'I have firefox on windows and I know it works with that lunux stuff too.'
1) no firefox:
'but where is it?' Iceanimal? Never heart of! Lunix sucks!'

2) firefox+eula
'oh well. like in windows *click*'

[myxal]

Why put the OS in front of the type? Why not say "Web Browser" or something like this, as gcalctool is called "Calculator" and so on?
I'll second that. And add in a comment that addressed this very issue, albeit on the other OS:
Then look at the apps. Why does the start menu come up with a load of apps down the left with names that all start Windows. I know I'm in Windows. You don't need to waste all the screen real estate telling me.Original here (http://www.hanselman.com/blog/CommentView.aspx?guid=41056a28-1803-40dc-9ed5-f7e7821dd0e7). ;)

[he_the_great]

I present you Newbie McWindows. He is a windows user. He knows firefox.
He heard about that ubuntu stuff and decides to try it.

After some little problems, he get it installed.

'I need a browser' thinks Newbie. 'I have firefox on windows and I know it works with that lunux stuff too.'
1) no firefox:
'but where is it?' Iceanimal? Never heart of! Lunix sucks!'

2) firefox+eula
'oh well. like in windows *click*'

'I need a browser' programs->internet->web browser 'hey this looks like Firefox'

I don't use Ubuntu, but usually programs were named by they function. In any case, that is exactly the reason they would leave Firefox in the repo to be installed. I have another possible thought for the newbie.

'No web browser?' "Hey Joe, when you told me to try this Ubuntu, you didn't mention there wouldn't be a browser."

or

'need browser... mozilla.com' (windows user remember?)

[karthikrg]

ln -s /usr/bin/firefox /usr/bin/iceweasel

Simple solution to all problems ;) I think debian has done such a thing coz when i type firefox, iceweasel launches flawlessly.

[Kano]

You don't need that symlink. You can execute iceweasel with firefox or even mozilla.

[yotambien]

You don't need that symlink. You can execute iceweasel with firefox or even mozilla.

mozilla executes Iceape (Seamonkey), while firefox launches Iceweasel. And I would thought that this is just because they are symlinked upon installation.

[Kano]

Well when you install iceape then you can chose it with:

update-alternatives --config mozilla

[he_the_great]

Well when you install iceape then you can chose it with:

update-alternatives --config mozilla

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

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

[sock]

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

[Zhick]

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

[sock]

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

[energyman]

or maybe creative labs and their stuff.

[KellyClowers]

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

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

[Vadi]

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

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

[energyman]

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

[Vadi]

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

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

[xav1r]

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

So which was the clause that wasnt in firefox 1.5 that is in firefox 2, and is that clause and many more now in firefox 3?

[deanjo]

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


Mozilla Chair Mitchell Baker, said in a blog post (http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2008/09/15/ubuntu-firefox-and-license-issues/) Monday that Mozilla had made a "giant error" in putting the wrong content into the end-user license agreement (EULA), which lays out how people can legally use the software.
"The most important thing here is to acknowledge that, yes, the content of the license agreement is wrong," Baker wrote. "The correct content is clear that the code is governed by Floss (free/libre/open-source software (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLOSS)) licenses, not the typical end-user license agreement language that is in the current version. We created a license that points to the Floss licenses, but we've made a giant error in not getting this to Ubuntu, other distributors, and posted publicly for review. We'll correct this asap."

[WSmart]

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

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

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


Be real; be sober.

[clint999]

How many read the EULA?

Choose your way - choose your path:

User friendlyness -or- Brand protection