Should Firefox be in main?

[bruce89]

I was looking at the ubuntu components page, and I thought that the new package of Firefox might conflict with the definition of main. For instance take this line:

The main distribution component contains applications that are free software, can freely be redistributed and are fully supported

You could argue that Ubuntu's new "official" package of Firefox is not free software, as it doesn't allow modification under the same name.

I propose that Firefox should be moved to restricted.
Discuss.

[mmcmonster]

Eeekkksss!!!

Oh no. Not again!

Technically, you are absolutely correct. Ubuntu is apparently distributing a version of firefox that is not sanctioned by mozilla.com, and can therefore bite us in the future. The only truley correct thing for Ubuntu (or mozilla.com, I suppose) to do is to repackage the firefox source with a "generic" name, such as "Internet browser" or some such, so that anyone can redistribute with that name.

[dom02]

Originally Posted by mmcmonster Eeekkksss!!! Oh no. Not again! Technically, you are absolutely correct. Ubuntu is apparently distributing a version of firefox that is not sanctioned by mozilla.com, and can therefore bite us in the future. The only truley correct thing for Ubuntu (or mozilla.com, I suppose) to do is to repackage the firefox source with a "generic" name, such as "Internet browser" or some such, so that anyone can redistribute with that name.

no I don't think that's a problem. I think Ubuntu worked things out with mozilla, which is why we now have the official firefox icon. The problem that he's talking about is that it makes it so that it can't be freely modified and distributed. Ubuntu seems to have permission to use the firefox name and logo with their version but if I edited the Ubuntu version and posted it I couldn't call it firefox anymore.

[bruce89]

Originally Posted by dom02 no I don't think that's a problem. I think Ubuntu worked things out with mozilla, which is why we now have the official firefox icon. The problem that he's talking about is that it makes it so that it can't be freely modified and distributed. Ubuntu seems to have permission to use the firefox name and logo with their version but if I edited the Ubuntu version and posted it I couldn't call it firefox anymore.

That's exactly what I mean.

I am not the only one wary of Mozilla now - "The Message: Practicality and Usability more important than Open Source"

[superm1]

Originally Posted by dom02 no I don't think that's a problem. I think Ubuntu worked things out with mozilla, which is why we now have the official firefox icon. The problem that he's talking about is that it makes it so that it can't be freely modified and distributed. Ubuntu seems to have permission to use the firefox name and logo with their version but if I edited the Ubuntu version and posted it I couldn't call it firefox anymore.

It really isn't an issue that firefox can't be freely modified and distributed. The whole issue at hand was that it could no longer be called firefox and be shippied with the official artwork if it was unless the changes were approved by mozilla.

[bruce89]

I have filed a bug - Firefox (for Edgy) should not be in main

[givré]

What's wrong with the icons ? (just a question, not a troll )

[bruce89]

Originally Posted by givré What's wrong with the icons ? (just a question, not a troll )

The icons are not under a free licence, so they shouldn't be in main anyway.

My complaint is not about the icons (as such), it's just that things in main must be able to be modified, which Firefox (mostly) isn't, without Mozilla's permission.

I also don't like Mozilla's attitude of forgetting about its free software heritage.

[shining]

Indeed, firefox doesn't belong in main anymore.
And the dfsg in the name really should be removed.

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. Please note that it may not be possible to provide complete support for this software since we are unable to fix the software ourselves, but can only forward problem reports to the actual authors.

It seems to totally fit in the restricted section. It is very commonly used, but it isn't completely free. And it cannot be supported by ubuntu itself, but problems have to be forwarded to mozilla first.

Some software from restricted will be installed on Ubuntu CDs but is clearly separated to ensure that it is easy to remove. We include this software because it is essential in order for Ubuntu to run on certain machines - typical examples are the binary drivers that some video card vendors publish, which are the only way for Ubuntu to run on those machines. By default, we will only use open source software unless there is simply no other way to install Ubuntu. The Ubuntu team works with such vendors to accelerate the open-sourcing of their software to ensure that as much software as possible is available under a Free licence.

Though, it doesn't fit with this second part of the description. It isn't essential for running ubuntu.

It seems like ubuntu has two conflicting goals. Being restrictive about free software and being user friendly IMHO don't go well together.
That's also why I think it's not bad to have both debian and ubuntu. Debian cares more about the first goal, and Ubuntu more about the second.
Though, I also believe it's important that both goals are kept in mind, but just that a preference is needed.
I think ubuntu did it quite well for wireless firmwares. I appreciate wireless working out of the box. But I also appreciate when it's made clear these are non free by putting them in restricted.
Same for firefox, I believe a distrib like ubuntu should keep providing it by default on the cd, but also make it clear what is special about it.

[bruce89]

Originally Posted by shining 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. Please note that it may not be possible to provide complete support for this software since we are unable to fix the software ourselves, but can only forward problem reports to the actual authors. It seems to totally fit in the restricted section. It is very commonly used, but it isn't completely free. And it cannot be supported by ubuntu itself, but problems have to be forwarded to mozilla first.

I never considered that part, I might forward that arguement to the bug.

Sort of related, all discussion should be here, not on the bug.

In fact, this thread might be better in the cafe, as Edgy's forum will shut soon.