Battle Brews Over Firefox In Ubuntu 8.10

[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/...icense-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?