8.10 possibly not to use firefox in next release?

[NullHead]

Well I just got done reading this: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=NjcxOA

And it makes me think that there needs to be two choices when you're installing ubuntu. Have good ol' Firefox and then have something like iceweasel in addition.

What do you guys think should happen?

Should Ubuntu stick with a Firefox that requires you accept their trademark agreement, or should Ubuntu switch to a web browser that needs not have a trademark agreement?

[zmjjmz]

Much ado about nothing.

[Half-Left]

Well as long as it's ok with the same license as Ubuntu uses, I.e freedom to use it how ever you want and distribute it but theirs is different to the GPL.

[karellen]

why not Firefox? :confused:

[NullHead]

Well if you read the article, it says that the only license that you must accept is their trademark agreement. Basically saying that the name FireFox belongs to the respective owners and that the firefox logo belongs to its respective owners.

It's still 100% free, but FireFox is just trying to make sure that after all of the users that use Firefox, it still belongs to the actual creators.

[Joeb454]

Actually I don't think Ubuntu will use Firefox in a future release. Mainly because I think Firefox is going to use Qt by default in future, from what I've read that is anyway

[NullHead]

If FireFox goes to QT there'll be absolutely NO WAY I'll ever use it then ... if that happens, it looks like I'll have to get rather cozy with a different browser.


If you can't tell, I have a rather dislike for kde ... I'm a 100% gnome fan. If firefox goes QT, it won't be a very nice thing for me to hear about.

[jrusso2]

The whole think is silly. They should worry more about making it usable for regular users.

[clanky]

Who cares, if you don't want Firefox, just install something different, if the Ubuntu devs choose not to have Firefox and you want it, then just go and download it, where is the issue?

[Mr. Picklesworth]

I would be delighted if Firefox went to Qt. It's about time Ubuntu actually packaged a browser that fits its release cycle, integrates with GNOME and runs without hanging the entire environment. (Oh, and while we're at it, it would be nice if said browser cared more about its Linux audience than its Windows audience, which is not the case with Firefox because Windows has the bigger share of users).

I would rather we start using a different web browser than just rebrand Firefox. While lots of people use it for the interface, one of the reasons it is default is name recognition. Having a differently named, slightly different looking browser that feels like Firefox (except broken, because Firefox under GNOME has always paled in comparison to a GNOME-centric browser like Epiphany) would feel a lot like learning that your new iPod is actually a cheap knockoff. TSClient and OpenOffice's Options dialog are quite enough cheap knockoffs of proprietary Windows software. Let's not have cheap knockoffs of open source software.

[karellen]

Well if you read the article, it says that the only license that you must accept is their trademark agreement. Basically saying that the name FireFox belongs to the respective owners and that the firefox logo belongs to its respective owners.

It's still 100% free, but FireFox is just trying to make sure that after all of the users that use Firefox, it still belongs to the actual creators.

and...what's wrong with trademarks? you know, the same goes for Ubuntu (name and logo belong to Canonical). should we stop using Ubuntu because of this?

[S.A.A]

Hey guys, Please say you are joking, i'm freaked out.. :(

[miggols99]

If FireFox goes to QT there'll be absolutely NO WAY I'll ever use it then ... if that happens, it looks like I'll have to get rather cozy with a different browser.


If you can't tell, I have a rather dislike for kde ... I'm a 100% gnome fan. If firefox goes QT, it won't be a very nice thing for me to hear about.
You've got it all wrong. They're working on a Qt version of Firefox, and it will be available for the KDE users. But the Gtk+ version will still be there.

[karellen]

I would be delighted if Firefox went to Qt. It's about time Ubuntu actually packaged a browser that fits its release cycle, integrates with GNOME and runs without hanging the entire environment. (Oh, and while we're at it, it would be nice if said browser cared more about its Linux audience than its Windows audience, which is not the case with Firefox because Windows has the bigger share of users).

I second this. as a KDE user, Firefox going Qt is good news for me :D

[Twitch6000]

Well after reading the whole page it seems they are doing it for trademark reasons.
It will still be free and open source from what I read anyways.

If it is still free and opensource then I really don't mind.

If that changes though,then I am switching to flock or opera lol.

[Half-Left]

Actually I don't think Ubuntu will use Firefox in a future release. Mainly because I think Firefox is going to use Qt by default in future, from what I've read that is anyway

Where did you get that information from, Qt ports have gone one after another, there's nothing to suggest otherwise.

[TwiceOver]

Whatever makes Flash work properly.

[clanky]

If Chrome for Linux is as good as the windows version promises to be then I will be using that.

[klange]

I don't see the problem here. It's Mozilla's way of protecting the Firefox name.

(And the QT port is just an extra addition to the set of available interfaces for Firefox, they're not permanently switching to QT, not after the work that was done to properly port Firefox to everything else; the QT port is just a bonus for KDE users)

[S.A.A]

Firefox will remain on the top of Internet browsers, no matter what is happening:mad:

[northern lights]

@Joel: I'm pretty certain the QT port does not mean that the gtk+ version will not be maintained anymore.

On the topic: ars technica - Nokia helps port Firefox to QT (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080818-nokia-helps-port-firefox-to-qt.html)


and...what's wrong with trademarks? you know, the same goes for Ubuntu (name and logo belong to Canonical). should we stop using Ubuntu because of this?
+1 for that. Trademarking a product's name does not violate the GPL at all.

I highly doubt Firefox will be dropped for QT port reason and it should by no means be dropped cause it's name is trademarked. That'd be quite ridiculous, actually.

[t0p]

Well after reading the whole page it seems they are doing it for trademark reasons.
It will still be free and open source from what I read anyways.

If it is still free and opensource then I really don't mind.

If that changes though,then I am switching to flock or opera lol.

I don't know about flock, but opera sure ain't open source! If you're gonna bin firefox for not being Free (if it stopped being Free), then opera sure is a weird choice for a replacement!

[Half-Left]

Opera can't be default, it's proprietary for one start. and GPL forbids that, you'd need permission from Opera themselves and a license would have to be drawn up or they agree to a Ubuntu one.

[JetskiDude911]

I don't really care if I have to accept an agreement to use it...it's no big deal to me. Kind of a pointless thing to worry about.

[tdrusk]

Firefox has been the best browser for me. I wouldn't want anything else. I am currently using IceWeasel in Debian, and I'm cool with that too.

[northern lights]

I don't really care if I have to accept an agreement to use it...it's no big deal to me. Kind of a pointless thing to worry about.
Personally, you might indeed not have to care.

When it comes to the default browser of a renowned Linux distribution it should somewhat be compatible with GPL terms, don't you think?!

[karellen]

Personally, you might indeed not have to care.

When it comes to the default browser of a renowned Linux distribution it should somewhat be compatible with GPL terms, don't you think?!

you mix up GPL with trademarks. Firefox is compatible with GPL terms

[klange]

Personally, you might indeed not have to care.

When it comes to the default browser of a renowned Linux distribution it should somewhat be compatible with GPL terms, don't you think?!

Then we better ditch the Human icon theme, that's not compatible with the GPL. And the Ubuntu icon, it's trademarked.

[northern lights]

you mix up GPL with trademarks. Firefox is compatible with GPL terms
I might have not been too clear -
I was referring to Opera being a possible alternative. I'm all pro-FF...


Then we better ditch the Human icon theme, that's not compatible with the GPL. And the Ubuntu icon, it's trademarked.
How exactly are trademarks not GPL compatible?

[nick09]

Do you think Firefox would really sue Canonical because of a small trademark? No, its a waste of time.

[northern lights]

Do you think Firefox would really sue Canonical because of a small trademark? No, its a waste of time.

It would be far more than a waste of time, it'd be counter productive, plus they wouldn't even win a case cause Canonical does not infringe the law.

It's in the Mozilla Corp's best interest to have their browser be the default for as many OSs as possible, just for reasons of propagation. The trademark is meant to ensure that you or me can't publish a product under the same name...

[Twitch6000]

I don't know about flock, but opera sure ain't open source! If you're gonna bin firefox for not being Free (if it stopped being Free), then opera sure is a weird choice for a replacement!

This is a problem how?
Opera is freeware and that is enough to make me happy.
Flock is open source by the way.

[northern lights]

This is a problem how?
Opera is freeware and that is enough to make me happy.
Flock is open source by the way.
As far as my interpretation of the GPL goes (watchout: layman's opinion - I haven't studied law...) trademarks are compatible with GPL terms.

Closed source software however isn't. Opera is free as in "Free Beer", but not free as in "Free Speech"...

[Kvark]

I understand their concern, if I where them I'd be worried about someone using their name for "Firefox Christian Edition" or whatever too but there is already an established way to inform people that something is a trademark, add an ® to it. So call it Firefox® or if Mozilla® won't accept that either then call it Iceweasel. Either way it's the same thing with different name and there is no need to nag about an EULA.

[Twitch6000]

As far as my interpretation of the GPL goes (watchout: layman's opinion - I haven't studied law...) trademarks are compatible with GPL terms.

Closed source software however isn't. Opera is free as in "Free Beer", but not free as in "Free Speech". You do have to accept an EULA upon installing.
Yes you do,but you will with firefox aswell in the nest versions.
You have to do this for certain reasons like trademarks.

Opera does this for that reason and a few others.

Trademark is one due to its name Opera is a show name you know :p.

To further my proof -

http://www.filehippo.com/download_opera/

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeware

This is however different from Free Software -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software

[northern lights]

Either way it's the same thing with different name and there is no need to nag about an EULA.This comment had been Opera related...

[Kvark]

This comment had been Opera related...
No, I was saying Iceweasel is the same thing as Firefox, it doesn't matter what you call it if it's the same thing.

Opera's EULA is a copyright issue (This is our creation, you're not allowed to modify it.) which is something entirely different from a trademark issue (This is our name, you're not allowed to impersonate us.).

[saulgoode]

I understand their concern, if I where them I'd be worried about someone using their name for "Firefox Christian Edition" or whatever too but there is already an established way to inform people that something is a trademark, add an ® to it. So call it Firefox® or if Mozilla® won't accept that either then call it Iceweasel. Either way it's the same thing with different name and there is no need to nag about an EULA.
+1

The terms of Firefox's licensing are not that onerous, it is the unnecessary step of forcing a click-through acceptance of those terms. It sets a terrible precedent for other Free Software projects to follow suit.

Imagine if the hundreds of packages being installed in a typical Ubuntu setup each required the user to accept the terms of its license. Ubuntu would soon become unbearably cumbersome to use.

[Swarms]

I think its possible that Ubuntu will stop using the Firefox browser in the future, but only if either Chrome, a fork of it or the webkit version of Epiphany are going to be worthy alternatives.

And this has nothing to do with this EULA, Ubuntu is for the normal human, and the normal human doesn't read nor care about EULAs.

[voteforpedro36]

No, I was saying Iceweasel is the same thing as Firefox, it doesn't matter what you call it if it's the same thing.


No, it's not. Iceweasel is not as good as Firefox (Flash especially, although I don't see how it could make much of a difference with the same plugins, but I was using Debian a while ago, it wasn't a good browser). I guarantee Firefox will be included with 8.10, then it's possible for a switch. Chrome is doubtful, but Epiphany with WebKit could be an option. Or just do what Arch Linux does with Firefox, although I have no idea if this is as legal as Canonical wants it or not, though.

[Polygon]

how is iceweasel not as good as firefox? the only thing they changed was like a string at compile time which changes the name/artwork, and added a thing to not load 0 width/length images to battle spyware.

and ubuntu won't use any browser that is not open source, so chrome and opera are out.

and i agree, "much ado about nothing". omg, you have to click "i accept to not infringe on firefox's trademark" before you use firefox. no big deal. its still open source.

[spoons]

how is iceweasel not as good as firefox? the only thing they changed was like a string at compile time which changes the name/artwork, and added a thing to not load 0 width/length images to battle spyware.

and ubuntu won't use any browser that is not open source, so chrome and opera are out.

and i agree, "much ado about nothing". omg, you have to click "i accept to not infringe on firefox's trademark" before you use firefox. no big deal. its still open source.

Microsoft have some very restrictive open source licenses. But they're still open source, so I guess they're fine. :razz:

Iceweasel for me. The red firefox logo annoys me for some reason.

[Twitch6000]

how is iceweasel not as good as firefox? the only thing they changed was like a string at compile time which changes the name/artwork, and added a thing to not load 0 width/length images to battle spyware.

and ubuntu won't use any browser that is not open source, so chrome and opera are out.

and i agree, "much ado about nothing". omg, you have to click "i accept to not infringe on firefox's trademark" before you use firefox. no big deal. its still open source.

Thank you for laying that out :D.

If ubuntu does switch it will probably be to Iceweasel or Flock.

[doorknob60]

Keep Firefox, or if you really don't want to, use a rebranded version of it like Iceweasel so it's still the same browser just with a different name.

[Kvark]

No, it's not. Iceweasel is not as good as Firefox (Flash especially, although I don't see how it could make much of a difference with the same plugins, but I was using Debian a while ago, it wasn't a good browser). I guarantee Firefox will be included with 8.10, then it's possible for a switch. Chrome is doubtful, but Epiphany with WebKit could be an option. Or just do what Arch Linux does with Firefox, although I have no idea if this is as legal as Canonical wants it or not, though.
I haven't tried Debian so now I'm speculating. It sounds strange that changing the name from Firefox to Iceweasel would cause problems with Flash. Maybe Debian uses Gnash which is open source but still very buggy instead of the closed source Macromedia Flash.

Also, I think Epiphany with WebKit is the most promising browser for the future.

Microsoft have some very restrictive open source licenses. But they're still open source, so I guess they're fine. :razz:

Iceweasel for me. The red firefox logo annoys me for some reason.
Only licenses approved by OSI are open source. Those Microsoft licenses are shared source, they share the source with you but don't open up the possibility to make your own modified versions.

[SunnyRabbiera]

well even when you install firefox the first time under windows you have the firefox EULA too.

[simtaalo]

If Chrome for Linux is as good as the windows version promises to be then I will be using that.

+1

i'm hearing nothing but good from friends who have used it under windows.

[simtaalo]

and ubuntu won't use any browser that is not open source, so chrome and opera are out.

:confused:
chrome is open source

[zmjjmz]

Yeah, guys, Canonical has a trademark on Ubuntu, much in the same way that Mozilla has its trademarks.
We just have to agree to a EULA, not like it will kill you.

[bp1509]

Well I just got done reading this: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=NjcxOA

And it makes me think that there needs to be two choices when you're installing ubuntu. Have good ol' Firefox and then have something like iceweasel in addition.

What do you guys think should happen?

Should Ubuntu stick with a Firefox that requires you accept their trademark agreement, or should Ubuntu switch to a web browser that needs not have a trademark agreement?

It's just a EULA over trademark. Canonical and Ubuntu have trademarks too. I don't see what the big deal is.

Personally I would like to see a browser with better speed, less system resources, more standardization when rendering web pages, and still have the type of plugin system firefox has.

Epiphany-webkit is looking nice, Midori looks nicer but they both lack in features and the UI department. Gtk apps have this nasty habit of taking up too much space with their buttons, fonts, toolbars, etc.. most of which are modifiable but still not good enough.

I could switch to one of those browsers though if they'd just make it easy to switch on and off proxies and had some decent bookmark management, I'd even give up my ad-blocking.

I'm hoping Chrome for Linux comes soon, all being said. I think the UI colors are ugly, but i can live with it.

Firefox for me just needs to reduce itself in size and resource usage and comply better with w3c standards and I'd happily stick with them.

[Half-Left]

Yeah, guys, Canonical has a trademark on Ubuntu, much in the same way that Mozilla has its trademarks.
We just have to agree to a EULA, not like it will kill you.

So let me get this straight, you agree to use something that everything you download is not yours, webpages and search get tracked and uploaded to Google and you think thats not bad?

Sell your soul to the devil, it's only your soul after all, who cares. Really sad to see people do this, you shouldn't be using Linux if you think this is not a issue.

[bp1509]

So let me get this straight, you agree to use something that everything you download is not yours, webpages and search get tracked and uploaded to Google and you think thats not bad?

Sell your soul to the devil, it's only your soul after all, who cares. Really sad to see people do this, you shouldn't be using Linux if you think this is not a issue.

Google simply made a mistake with their EULA and corrected it. Try and not be so chicken little.

[Mr. Picklesworth]

Epiphany-webkit is looking nice, Midori looks nicer but they both lack in features and the UI department. Gtk apps have this nasty habit of taking up too much space with their buttons, fonts, toolbars, etc.. most of which are modifiable but still not good enough.

GTK apps are also wonderfully flexible. Different themes set different borders for buttons and the like; it can make quite a difference. You can change your font sizes in Appearance preferences. You can also wipe out the text labels on toolbars system-wide (except in OpenOffice and Firefox, which don't use GTK) via the Interface tab in Appearance preferences.

The upside to the not-quite-compact design of GTK user interfaces is that they are always resizable. Translators and artists like this :)
They take up more space, but they always look right.

I should also point out to you that GTK apps make up the majority of the Ubuntu desktop, and ideally would make up the whole thing since it is better for everyone to just have the one toolkit in use. Keeps things consistent, snappy and pretty.

I've always kind of liked Epiphany's user interface, although this may be due to my unusual attraction to simplicity.

[Half-Left]

Google simply made a mistake with their EULA and corrected it. Try and not be so chicken little.

Dont take it so literal and I know they did, it's a lesson to anyone a agrees to these EULA's.

[karellen]

So let me get this straight, you agree to use something that everything you download is not yours, webpages and search get tracked and uploaded to Google and you think thats not bad?

Sell your soul to the devil, it's only your soul after all, who cares. Really sad to see people do this, you shouldn't be using Linux if you think this is not a issue.

Linux is a trademark too ;)

[northern lights]

Google simply made a mistake with their EULA and corrected it. Try and not be so chicken little.
+1

Where was Chrome in this discussion?

--> Apart from IE, that's probably the last candidate for a Firefox replacement (which isn't needed in the first place, IMHO).

[Half-Left]

Trademarks are different, you agree to show the firefox icon and logo which you can't change, it's nothing like a EULA. I was just responding to someone who said who cares about EULA's they wont kill you.

So basically if someone said you have two pens, one takes your rights way and one doesn't, alot of people here would say who cares are my rights, just give me the damn pen.

[t0p]

you shouldn't be using Linux if you think this is not a issue.

Not everyone who uses Linux does so because they believe All Information Should Be Free. If you had to sign up to the Free software philosophy before installation Linux would have a much smaller user base.

Look in these forums at all the folk who want help installing Macromedia Flash plugins. And all the folk who shun Gnash. You want us all to leave your Linux alone?

[Half-Left]

Not everyone who uses Linux does so because they believe All Information Should Be Free. If you had to sign up to the Free software philosophy before installation Linux would have a much smaller user base.

Look in these forums at all the folk who want help installing Macromedia Flash plugins. And all the folk who shun Gnash. You want us all to leave your Linux alone?

I'm saying be careful what you agree to because it may bite your **** on the way back.

[karellen]

Any trademarks, logos and service marks ("Marks") displayed on this website are the property of their owners, whether Canonical or third parties. For example, Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds. Debian is a trademark of Software in the Public Interest, Inc. Windows is allegedly a trademark of Microsoft Corporation. Ubuntu and Canonical are registered trademarks of Canonical Ltd. Please see the Ubuntu Trademark Policy for more information.

from www.ubuntu.com


Although our code is free, it is very important that we strictly enforce our trademark rights, in order to keep them valid. Our trademarks include, among others, the names Mozilla®, mozilla.org®, Firefox®, Thunderbird™, Bugzilla™, Camino®, Sunbird®, SeaMonkey®, and XUL™, as well as the Mozilla logo, Firefox logo, Thunderbird logo and the red lizard logo. (The full list is in the Mozilla Trademark Policy.) This means that, while you have considerable freedom to redistribute and modify our software, there are tight restrictions on your ability to use the Mozilla name and logos, even when built into binaries that we provide.

from http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/licensing.html

there's no difference. yet the same people that use Ubuntu daily complain about Firefox not being "free enough"
this whole thing gives me a headache

[Half-Left]

Exactly, agreeing to adobe agreements and other proprietary stuff you should be more concerned about, yet at a drop of a hat we do.

[SomeGuyDude]

Wah, license agreements.

Until a better browser comes around, I stick with what I like. Though for the record I use Swiftfox.

[benerivo]

What a great post karellen has submitted. The 'wording' of freedom makes no sense.

[Dr Small]

Please read here, and discuss:
http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/14/195203

Dr Small

[LaRoza]

I don't mind EULA's, but I feel a user of a distro that aims to be free in every sense of the word shouldn't require agreements to specific apps. For the Ubuntu philosophy, I don't think this is good (although it is trivial from a technical standpoint). They should (IMO) use the GNOME browser or the Debian one.

[Half-Left]

This is why Richard Stallman doesn't recommend Ubuntu and such licenses.

[JeffoOfMetal]

I like what people are saying.

Perhaps this is an opportunity for an entirely new, and hopefully much faster, stabler, intuitive and feature-rich browser. Google Chrome is turning out well, I'd like to see something just as good, if not better.

It needs a name. :)

[SomeGuyDude]

I'd like it if a faster, stabler, and more intuitive browser popped out regardless of EULA and whatnot. Dodging a stupid licensing agreement shouldn't be the catalyst for improving my browsing experience, that's not why Firefox showed up in the first place.

[benerivo]

I'd go with iceweasel. The only difference is in the name.

I have never refused to use a pre-installed browser because i was unsure about the name.

[cardinals_fan]

Sell your soul to the devil, it's only your soul after all, who cares. Really sad to see people do this, you shouldn't be using Linux if you think this is not a issue.
Why not? I use Linux (actually OpenSolaris right now) because I find it more useful than Windows.

[money2themax]

you complaining about a EULA in firefox wow what has this come to you can still modify it on your own level and submit the changes to Mozilla all they are copyrighting are the logos and the name so that they can get funding relax it's not a big deal they havent close sourced the browser or made you pay to use/modify the code or software right so no biggy

[SomeGuyDude]

Why not? I use Linux (actually OpenSolaris right now) because I find it more useful than Windows.

Same. I use Ubuntu because it's convenient, works, looks nice, is free and such. Not out of an ideological fanaticism for "free and open source". Free is big, open source I can take or leave. I have no problems with someone wanting to trademark their software. Heck I don't even care if they want to charge for it, it's their product.

I don't get this idea of "YOU MUST GIVE ME SOURCE CODE FOR FREE OR ELSE YOU SUCK" attitude. Let people do what they want with their code.

[andamaru]

I hope they remove firefox, and several other distro do the same. Most distro follow the rule anyway, the users aren't affected by this.

[master5o1]

So all that is needed is an obvious message on the default homepage that says that Firefox and blah blah blah are trademarks of Mozilla and blah?

Such a simple addition to the chrome://ubufox/content/startpage.html page, and the http://start.ubuntu/$VERSION page.


eg. (http://start.ubuntu.com/8.04, http://start.ubuntu.com/8.10, etc).

[agurk]

+1 for Iceweasel

(yikes btw, what a poorly constructed poll!)

[original_jamingrit]

I agree with the OP; there should be both available on the LiveCD, and then a choice at installation. On one hand, Firefox is familiar to a fair margin of Windows immigrants. On the other, someone shouldn't have to agree to an EULA that they don't want to just to browse the web, and the presence of the EULA may confuse people. Offering an option would be the best.

Although, if it's true that firefox is migrating to qt, this firefox on Intrepid by default may not happen anyways.

[NullHead]

+1 for Iceweasel

(yikes btw, what a poorly constructed poll!)

Yeah I know. But who cares? A poll is a Poll!

A mod an fix it if they wish, but there's nothing I can do about it now.

[RFScheer]

I like Firefox. There is a benefit to Ubuntu and the entire community for having the premier web browser prominently associated with it as the default browser.

I use Zotero to catalog research on the web. It, like vast numbers of plugins, is wed to Firefox, Iceweasel and other related Mozilla products and offshoots. This is part of the benefit (and risk) of the Firefox ecosystem.

I don't like this extra needless legalese click-through EULA that pops up the first time you use Firefox after installing 8.10.

Definitely a step back from Ubuntu's point of view -
1. needless delay during (ok, just after) install,
2. needless hassle to the bureaucratically challenged organizations of the world, whose lawyers want to screen all these legal agreements,
3. needless discussion in this forum, Slashdot's, Launchpad's, ....,
4. needless sullying of the Firefox image (hey, you might not care but many others do care and it's weird that Mozilla would not respect that).

So, I'll continue happily using Firefox with Zotero plugged in even if Mark Shuttleworth and his peers around the OS industry don't succeed in talking Mozilla into a smarter way of reminding people about their obvious trademarks. But, I'll be getting ready to bail out as soon as this becomes the norm and we have to click through EULA's for OpenOffice, The Gimp, maybe Gnome, fonts and so forth.

The EULA is not a big deal but it is a bad sign and a bad trend and should be resisted.

[BwackNinja]

Being a distro makes everything harder. By being a conglomeration of others work mostly, it is dependent on others work. Giving Mozilla special treatment isn't bad in itself, but a bad precedent. A line has to be drawn somewhere, and if not here, where? Drawing the line anywhere else gives the message that "your software isn't as good as this other software that we allowed to do this". That's not exactly the message anyone wants to hear.

[Slug71]

Opera would be cool as default.

[Cenotaph]

Maybe Canonical should come up with their own browser, taking bits of code from firefox and google chrome and make it more ubuntu-like :D

im fine with an EULA, tbh. i don't mind it. but tbh, im not that much of a firefox fan and sometimes i feel ubuntu gives me no alternative (it does, i know, but i'd like to see the latest opera in the repositories and a better qt/gtk integration), maybe a change would be nice.

[aysiu]

Opera would be cool as default.
Opera isn't open source.

[vishzilla]

I'm fine with the EULA. Nothing wrong with it. Firefox is the better option as a default browser.

[inportb]

Do you love the Firefox brand so much? Because that's the only difference between Firefox and the major alternatives being considered. Many people apply their own themes anyway.

[karellen]

and we wonder why open source doesn't get mainstream, when we ponder about trifles like Firefox not being 101% free (aka Stallman's style) because of its trademark&logo (which I find perfectly acceptable
and for all those who are not satisfied by Firefox being the default browser in Ubuntu (wow, another trademark of Canonical,how outrageous!) there's gNewSense. why don't you use that instead of complaining about Ubuntu?..
just my $0.02

[eentonig]

Haven't read through the entire thread, as for me it's basically a non-issue. If I don't like the browser provided, I simply install one at choice.

However, once the chromium browser becomes available for linux, would there be something against using that as a default browser?

- As far as I could follow, Chromium is Open source.
- It's fast (I tried it at work and never stopped using it.)

[MaX]

Opera isn't open source.

No, but it's faster than Firefox! :)

I'd say go for Iceweasel as the default, most people wouldn't notice the difference anyway.

[jrusso2]

and we wonder why open source doesn't get mainstream, when we ponder about trifles like Firefox not being 101% free (aka Stallman's style) because of its trademark&logo (which I find perfectly acceptable
and for all those who are not satisfied by Firefox being the default browser in Ubuntu (wow, another trademark of Canonical,how outrageous!) there's gNewSense. why don't you use that instead of complaining about Ubuntu?..
just my $0.02

Yes and even funnier is that Ubuntu is also a trademark and copywrite.

[northern lights]

Opera isn't open source.No, but it's faster than Firefox! :)
Fair enough, it might be. Speed is not vital though when it comes to GPL compliance...

[karellen]

Yes and even funnier is that Ubuntu is also a trademark and copywrite.

well, good luck in trying to reason out this with Stallman's zealots ](*,)

[plun]

Well.. burning time on this when the world is overfilled with strange software from Redmond.

So again.. Can someone show me an official discussion about this
between Canonical/Ubuntu and Mozilla Foundation ??

Mailing list discussion ?

[mr.propre]

Well if you read the article, it says that the only license that you must accept is their trademark agreement. Basically saying that the name FireFox belongs to the respective owners and that the firefox logo belongs to its respective owners.

It's still 100% free, but FireFox is just trying to make sure that after all of the users that use Firefox, it still belongs to the actual creators.

I heard about the same problem with Debian, I think they planning to solve it to use the same code of firefox but give it a different name. Personally I find it an idiot move from Mozilla.

[howlingmadhowie]

a firefox derivative would be best. just as long as firebug runs on it, i'm happy.

[plun]

Personally I find it an idiot move from Mozilla.

Well.. idiot move or not..? Different opinions.:)

This is 100% important
http://secunia.com/advisories/search/?search=Firefox

You can not use unknown special brewed software today for
browsing. It must be large strong projects which can handle also
security issues.

[irrdev]

If 8.10, or any other Ubuntu mainstream release in the future, were to replace Firefox, I would definitely make the switch to another distro. Firefox is by far the most powerful browser currently available, even surpassing Opera with its extensive XUL api which allows for the 5,000+ extensions. I have absolutely no problem recognizing Mozilla as the creator of Firefox; the source code is still free and will always remains so.

As for the rumour that Firefox will switch to QT, this is not at all true. Nokia bought out Trolltech and QT, and that company has showed an interest in including Firefox on its mobile phones. In order to support QT at the same time, it was decided to try and port part of Firefox to QT. Some Mozilla developers joined the project, hoping that Firefox might pick up a bigger KDE userbase. So far QT-support has only been partially implemented, and it is only a side-project at best. You can read more about it here (http://blog.vlad1.com/2008/05/06/well-isnt-that-qt/) and download a test build here (http://browser.garage.maemo.org/news/10/). Even the Mozilla developer states:

gtk2 will remain the default supported toolkit there [for Firefox]
You may also notice that the testable Firefox-QT build insn't even hosted on the Mozilla/Firefox website. There is no need to worry that Firefox will switch to QT; this is nothing more than an unbased rumour helped along by several hopeful KDE users. :wink:

[knarf]

They should just rebrand Firefox to something else (apt-cache search abrowser should give a hint) and leave it to the users to install the 'firefox' branding package if desired. These packages contain just the 'branding'-bits, leaving the actual browser code identical between Mozilla's version and Ubuntu's rebranded version:


$ dpkg -L abrowser-3.1-branding
/.
/usr
/usr/share
/usr/share/applications
/usr/share/applications/firefox-3.1.desktop
/usr/share/doc
/usr/share/doc/abrowser-3.1-branding
/usr/share/doc/abrowser-3.1-branding/changelog.Debian.gz
/usr/share/doc/abrowser-3.1-branding/copyright
/usr/lib
/usr/lib/firefox-3.1b1pre
/usr/lib/firefox-3.1b1pre/chrome
/usr/lib/firefox-3.1b1pre/chrome/awesome-branding-en-US.jar
/usr/lib/firefox-3.1b1pre/chrome/awesome-branding-en-US.manifest
/usr/lib/firefox-3.1b1pre/chrome/icons
/usr/lib/firefox-3.1b1pre/chrome/icons/default
/usr/lib/firefox-3.1b1pre/chrome/icons/default/default16.png
/usr/lib/firefox-3.1b1pre/chrome/icons/default/default48.png
/usr/lib/firefox-3.1b1pre/chrome/icons/default/default32.png
/usr/lib/firefox-3.1b1pre/chrome/awesome-branding.manifest
/usr/lib/firefox-3.1b1pre/chrome/awesome-branding.jar
/usr/lib/firefox-3.1b1pre/icons
/usr/lib/firefox-3.1b1pre/icons/mozicon128.png
/usr/lib/firefox-3.1b1pre/icons/mozicon16.xpm
/usr/lib/firefox-3.1b1pre/icons/document.png
/usr/lib/firefox-3.1b1pre/icons/mozicon50.xpm


A rose smells as sweet by any other name...

[Starks]

Actually I don't think Ubuntu will use Firefox in a future release. Mainly because I think Firefox is going to use Qt by default in future, from what I've read that is anyway
Awesome. The Qt and GTK engines are becoming increasingly compatible so this shouldn't be a problem.

[ronacc]

You can not use unknown special brewed software today for
browsing. It must be large strong projects which can handle also
security issues.

all browsers started out as "unknown and special brewed software " even FF itself , if nobody used it and recognised its merits (security and others" it would still be unknown and special brewed .

[plun]

all browsers started out as "unknown and special brewed software " even FF itself , if nobody used it and recognised its merits (security and others" it would still be unknown and special brewed .

Well.. you can build a GUI for a browser but not the engine.
If its Webkit or Xulrunner is less important.

I think its absolute important that its possible to find statitics and vulernabilitys for all major browsers including Ubuntu

For example

US-Cert
http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/

Secunia
http://secunia.com/

I can compare this with Google Chrome where several countrys security response teams strongly advice for not using Googles web browser for other then tests.

A web browser today is something special and it must be large strong projects such as Mozilla or Webkit. Also strong sponsors such as Nokia and Google ! It is expensive to build a browser engine..

[knarf]

All this emphasis on 'large strong projects' and 'strong sponsors' and such detracts from the issues. Rendering engines and browsers can be made by anyone capable of writing software. Having a 'large strong project' and/or a 'strong sponsor' has exactly zero to do with the eventual quality of the product, viz. Internet Explorer for a graphic example of what I mean. Don't fall in that trap or soon you'll only run 'official' software from 'large, well-known' organisations which have been 'very expensive' to develop. Exactly the sort of thing which many people tried to get away from when they started moving to free software.

A compact, well-written rendering engine from a small team can be just as safe as one from one of those lauded organisations. The question is: how to find out? Who do you trust? How many eyes does it take to dredge up those bugs? Having a large userbase in itself does not help as most users are completely oblivious of what it is that makes software unsafe.

What can a free software project do to show its code is safe and sound? Any takers?

[zekopeko]

i don't understand why they don't simply include the trademark part in the MPL license and put the license under help as totem/other_programs do.

[plun]

All this emphasis on 'large strong projects' and 'strong sponsors' and such detracts from the issues. Rendering engines and browsers can be made by anyone capable of writing software. Having a 'large strong project' and/or a 'strong sponsor' has exactly zero to do with the eventual quality of the product, viz. Internet Explorer for a graphic example of what I mean. Don't fall in that trap or soon you'll only run 'official' software from 'large, well-known' organisations which have been 'very expensive' to develop. Exactly the sort of thing which many people tried to get away from when they started moving to free software.

A compact, well-written rendering engine from a small team can be just as safe as one from one of those lauded organisations. The question is: how to find out? Who do you trust? How many eyes does it take to dredge up those bugs? Having a large userbase in itself does not help as most users are completely oblivious of what it is that makes software unsafe.

What can a free software project do to show its code is safe and sound? Any takers?

Well, you can study the source code for Webkit, Xulrunner, Google Chrome and so on and its massive work

This was just posted within the master bug

Removing the Firefox 3 EULA

http://twinturbo.org/firefox/removing-the-firefox-3-eula/



In particular, they kept repeating, “Fedora has a EULA, so why shouldn’t we?”. That seemed to be the main reason for it.

I have news for them. Fedora doesn’t have a EULA any more.

The reason it doesn’t is because I complained about it, and made the case to their management, lawyers, and release manager, that:

* They don’t need a EULA, trademark law applies anyway
* It’s free software so people can go in and remove the EULA anyway (which in fact I did, so I never agreed to it)
* Putting EULAs into Fedora was causing all sorts of unsavory characters to go “see, Fedora is doing it” and stick EULAs into their own distros — EULAs that contain really objectionable provisions.
* I don’t want my relationship with Fedora/Mozilla to be governed by a one-sided contract written by them. I want it to be governed by the laws, which are already one-sided enough.



So this is a strange battle... "IE8 sucks" maybe :)

I hope that Canonical/Ubuntu officials contacts Mozilla Foundation and asks for a clarification.

[steeleyuk]

i don't understand why they don't simply include the trademark part in the MPL license and put the license under help as totem/other_programs do.

I presume its because then all other projects that use the MPL would also have to include the trademark part. Which would make difficultly for Iceweasel et al.

The trademark is specific to Mozilla rather than part of the licensing. Plus the copyright license is completely different to a trademark.

[knarf]

Well, you can study the source code for Webkit, Xulrunner, Google Chrome and so on and its massive work
What I really meant was 'what can a fledgling free software project do to show the world its code is safe'? Once a project gains in popularity it will start showing up in the statistics of the 'security community' - or not of course, as those statistics only show what went wrong, not what went right - but for a new project to succeed in a (justifiably) security-conscious marketplace it may want/need something to show their design and/or code is not unsafe.

[plun]

What I really meant was 'what can a fledgling free software project do to show the world its code is safe'? Once a project gains in popularity it will start showing up in the statistics of the 'security community' - or not of course, as those statistics only show what went wrong, not what went right - but for a new project to succeed in a (justifiably) security-conscious marketplace it may want/need something to show their design and/or code is not unsafe.

The web can be "evil" and the bad guys are lurking around everywhere, therefore I think its better with strong projects for browers. Its just my opinion.

Debians "disaster" with SSL alse gave me more arguments for this.

I also think its like Asa Dotzler writes within the Mozilla master bug

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=439604


"This surely won't help brand recognition."

I agree. Ubuntu's brand will suffer if disassociated from Firefox as is proposed here and in the Ubuntu bug.

So someone must solve this and easiest is just to remove this EULA popup otherwise its other reasons for driving this open source "conflict" which is just tragic...

[phenest]

Much ado about nothing.

Oh my god! Never saw this thread coming.

Couldn't careless about the EULA. I vote yes.

[kigol]

Well, you can study the source code for Webkit, Xulrunner, Google Chrome and so on and its massive work

This was just posted within the master bug

Removing the Firefox 3 EULA

http://twinturbo.org/firefox/removing-the-firefox-3-eula/



great link! :guitar:

[plun]

great link!

http://twinturbo.org/firefox/removing-the-firefox-3-eula/

Well... I am also 100% sure that Mozilla Foundation
never will sue Ubuntu or Canonical to a court if this EULA is removed.



Just to do it.. Done...

[ronacc]

I have nothing against EULA's I use several apps that have them , I do have something against EULA's for DEFAULT apps . I feel it violates the spirit of free and opensource sotware which I believe is something that Ubuntu is dedicated to. Ubuntu can use another default browser without emasculating themselves , afterall FF became the default only a couple of versions ago and correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Kouqueror still the default for Kubuntu ?

[NullHead]

I have nothing against EULA's I use several apps that have them , I do have something against EULA's for DEFAULT apps . I feel it violates the spirit of free and opensource sotware which I believe is something that Ubuntu is dedicated to. Ubuntu can use another default browser without emasculating themselves , afterall FF became the default only a couple of versions ago and correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Kouqueror still the default for Kubuntu ?

Your reason is exactly why I made this thread! I'm glad to finally see someone realizing that they'd have to accept the ELUA before using FF for the first time. This could be bothersome to people, but really isn't this thread about a rights and the freedom that Ubuntu gives us?

[money2themax]

Yes and even funnier is that Ubuntu is also a trademark and copywrite.
i think that this statement basically makes this thread unseated and ill thought out and i think it needs to be closed

[inportb]

i think that this statement basically makes this thread unseated and ill thought out and i think it needs to be closed

How so? You don't see any Ubuntu derivatives shoving the "Ubuntu EULA" in your face, do you?

[kigol]

http://twinturbo.org/firefox/removing-the-firefox-3-eula/

Well... I am also 100% sure that Mozilla Foundation
never will sue Ubuntu or Canonical to a court if this EULA is removed.



Just to do it.. Done...

yeah, you're prolly right

[money2themax]

they both have a trademark and copyright to their product(s) and this meaningless gripe over the firefox EULA is just ridiculous btw can anyone copy it in its entirety and post it?

[benerivo]

This (http://packages.ubuntu.com/intrepid/abrowser) is the package that has been created so that there is no need to accept a EULA, and this (http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/legal/eula/firefox-en.html) is the EULA.

[Peter Frank]

If FireFox goes to QT there'll be absolutely NO WAY I'll ever use it then ... if that happens, it looks like I'll have to get rather cozy with a different browser.


If you can't tell, I have a rather dislike for kde ... I'm a 100% gnome fan. If firefox goes QT, it won't be a very nice thing for me to hear about.

There is a GTK theme for QT 4 now, QGtkStyle, which makes QT 4 apps look like authenticate GTK apps. http://labs.trolltech.com/page/Projects/Styles/GtkStyle
I really like this because I want to use all the great KDE apps but don't like KDE visual style.
However firefox is likely to bundle a QT (if this does happen) in its own directory instead of using the shared libs in the system, in which case QGtkStyle will be of no help.

[inportb]

Then again, QT is not the same as KDE. And GTK is not the same as Gnome.

If Firefox/GTK can blend into my KDE desktop, who says Firefox/QT would not blend into a Gnome desktop?

[kigol]

there's an update:

http://twinturbo.org/firefox/mark-shuttleworth-responds-to-comments-about-the-firefox-3-eula/

[money2themax]

Mr. Shuttleworth is saying that it's an underhanded thing to switch to iceweasel and Mozilla has made many contributions to Ubuntu so going and saying that just because of this EULA that you start griping could [in theory] hinder Ubuntu and quite possibly hurt it badly so think about it before you say things like, "oh i'm switching to iceweasle because of the new Firefox EULA"

[cardinals_fan]

Look, people who MUST have pure open source, non-trademarked software can use gNewSense (http://www.gnewsense.org/static/homepage/). It's based off Ubuntu, but is made by the FSF to offer a totally free alternative.

[NullHead]

I had an idea.

Perhaps if nautilus had a web browser feature, they could simply not put firefox in Ubuntu, but make it an option in the installer to install the most popular browser in the world.

Doesn't KDE do something similar?

[mike1234]

Well I just got done reading this: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=NjcxOA

And it makes me think that there needs to be two choices when you're installing ubuntu. Have good ol' Firefox and then have something like iceweasel in addition.

What do you guys think should happen?

Should Ubuntu stick with a Firefox that requires you accept their trademark agreement, or should Ubuntu switch to a web browser that needs not have a trademark agreement?

Hopefully Ubuntu won't get their knickers in a twist like Debian did. I refuse to use Debian because of Iceweasel. Maybe if Google Chrome lives up they could just dump FF. FF is getting a "little high and mighty" if you ask me. And what about Swiftfox?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiftfox

M.

[NullHead]

Hopefully Ubuntu won't get their knickers in a twist like Debian did. I refuse to use Debian because of Iceweasel.

M.

I refuse to use Debian purely because of their release cycle, but IceWeasel isn't one of the reasons I don't use it.

I use Debian Lenny on my server, but it's not really desktop material, IMO.

*hides*

Honestly, I feel as if this has been taken too much to heart and we should all ignore the ELUA for Firefox. Honestly, we'd know if firefox decided to be "not free" anymore ... It's all over just a few pictures and trademarks. Can we simply just say, "Yes Mozilla, Firefox does indeed belong to you and the logo equally belongs to you." I find this to be rather humbling to know and acknowledge Mozilla's presence in an Ubuntu release.

So, Firefox in Ubuntu? OH YEAH! It makes it all the more popular and "homey" for new users that are just being introduced to Ubuntu. They can say, "Oh hay I know how to work this thing! *pushes buttons*" I mean really, it's really popular for the Windows platform, why can't it be equally popular for Ubuntu/Linux Platforms?

This is nonsense if anybody asks me ... give Mozilla the credit for their work on Firefox and move on.

NullHead

[irrdev]

This is a ridiculous issue to be arguing about. IMO, "Linux for Human Beings" also means that you get usable, well-known software which is of course open-source and free. Doesn't firefox fit this requirement perfectly? All Mozilla wants is a bit of well-deserved recognition for their fabulous product. That is basically all the EULA does; no actual software restrictions of any kind whatsoever. Any complainers should take a look at Google Chrome's EULA (http://www.google.com/chrome/eula.html), and then maybe they can really reconsider if Mozilla's EULA is at all unreasonable.

I am really glad to see Mark Shuttleworth's stance on this issue (http://twinturbo.org/firefox/mark-shuttleworth-responds-to-comments-about-the-firefox-3-eula/). His verdict? To replace Firefox with Iceweasel "would be a weaselly thing to do", and he is "resolutely opposed to calling an unbranded firefox Ubuntu Browser”!

I hope that this is the end of this issue. Could the moderators please lock this thread?

[wgrant]

This is a ridiculous issue to be arguing about. IMO, "Linux for Human Beings" also means that you get usable, well-known software which is of course open-source and free. Doesn't firefox fit this requirement perfectly? All Mozilla wants is a bit of well-deserved recognition for their fabulous product. That is basically all the EULA does; no actual software restrictions of any kind whatsoever. Any complainers should take a look at Google Chrome's EULA (http://www.google.com/chrome/eula.html), and then maybe they can really reconsider if Mozilla's EULA is at all unreasonable.

I am really glad to see Mark Shuttleworth's stance on this issue (http://twinturbo.org/firefox/mark-shuttleworth-responds-to-comments-about-the-firefox-3-eula/). His verdict? To replace Firefox with Iceweasel "would be a weaselly thing to do", and he is "resolutely opposed to calling an unbranded firefox Ubuntu Browser”!

I hope that this is the end of this issue. Could the moderators please lock this thread?

Shall I write a really, really bad EULA, point you to it, and tell you that you cannot complain about anything ever again? Google Chrome's EULA being worse doesn't mean that Firefox 3's EULA is perfectly acceptable.

On what basis do you request that the thread be locked? None at all, by the look of things.

[Gina]

I don't think I would advocate removing Firefox from Ubuntu at the moment - it has so many advantages. What we really need to do is persuade Mozilla that their EULA is irrelevant in Ubuntu and will hurt both Ubuntu and Firefox if it remains.

I feel very strongly that it has to go but it would be a pity if we have to remove Firefox itself to get rid of it.

[irrdev]

Shall I write a really, really bad EULA, point you to it, and tell you that you cannot complain about anything ever again? Google Chrome's EULA being worse doesn't mean that Firefox 3's EULA is perfectly acceptable.

On what basis do you request that the thread be locked? None at all, by the look of things.
Concerning the EULAs, I was simply trying to put things into perspective. Chrome is going to be a big competitor to Firefox in the future, and Google is generally seen as a good supporter of open-source software. I did not choose the Firefox-Google EULA comparison as a best-worst example, but rather as a comparison of two large competitors. If a "worse" EULA exists, it has to be from a corporation such as Microsoft. I am not saying that the Firefox EULA is perfectly acceptable, but I do believe it is a compromise which is understandable and perhaps justified. The Mozilla developers have made huge contributions to open-source, and to grant them some recognition for their work is deserved, even if it is not in adherence to the Free Software Foundation's mandates and guidelines.

I feel that all that can be discussed in this thread has been discussed. The community cannot make the final decision on this matter. If Mark's comments are any indication, I don't think we'll be seeing Firefox replaced anytime soon, and IceWeasel will definitely not be a replacement. It's ultimately up to the Ubuntu devs to discuss this matter further with Mozilla, and I therefore don't see the point of this thread continuing. Maybe I am mistaken, but I rather thought it was customary to lock ongoing "flamewar" threads. :wink:

[Zlatan]

Voted: other browser.
Why not Epiphany?;)

[vishzilla]

For the acceptance of a large audience, I think Ubuntu should settle with Epiphany or atleast aBrowser

[soxs]

Keeping firefox would equal weakening the GPL.
It's not really about the firefox codebase, but only about the art and name the restrictions are for. So why not do it as the debian guys did? Replace firefox with a renamed (and with GPLed artwork) version, aka Iceweasel and for thunderbird (which will further or later get the same EULA fuss) with Icedove...

[ronacc]

I feel that all that can be discussed in this thread has been discussed. The community cannot make the final decision on this matter. lock ongoing "flamewar" threads. :wink:

closing off discussion of a topic you don't like is really open and free ,perhaps you would like us to have an EULA for the forum ? the sheer number of posts shows that this is a topic that concerens the community , and yes the community WILL make the final decision on this, one way or the other.The discussion here has so far been calm and measured by what strech do you imagine it to be a "flamewar" ?

[cb951303]

can someone clarify? from what I understand there is no reason to remove firefox. We just need to rebrand it. It's still the same browser but called something else? why all the fuss...

[jonathan21]

just heard intrepid ibex will come with eula in firefox for thos who have used the alphas what does it say.and whats bad about it

[vishzilla]

aBrowser is the final solution. Keep firefox! Or rebrand it to IceGoat ;)

[kostkon]

So what? It's just an EULA. So fuss for nothing.

Do you expect all the software in Ubuntu to adhere to GPL? Extremist ideologists that give a bad name to Linux.

And, I actually find it funny that people are talking about replacing Firefox.

[kostkon]

Well if you read the article, it says that the only license that you must accept is their trademark agreement. Basically saying that the name FireFox belongs to the respective owners and that the firefox logo belongs to its respective owners.

It's still 100% free, but FireFox is just trying to make sure that after all of the users that use Firefox, it still belongs to the actual creators.
Where's the wrong here?

[buellman]

Voted for other.
I like epiphany so I would like to have it as default. On the other hand epiphany would need some tweaks to make it a good alternative. For example at least a good cookie-manager (maybe as extension?).

Buellman

[NullHead]

Where's the wrong here?

There's no problem, I believe I was simply trying to explain the ELUA a bit better.

I'm all for keeping firefox with one little ELUA in it ... IMO it's a bit ridiculous to be arguing about an ELUA, where as windows users accept them every time they use their computer and don't even realize that the actual software that they're running doesn't belong to them. I've read most of Microsoft's ELUA, and it's rather scary ... basically all that you would've "bought" from microsoft is the ability to "borrow" or "use/rent" their license key ... This is not the case with Firefox.

They simply want us to remember that the Firefox logos belong to Mozilla and the Firefox team. If you want absolutely "free" stuff, go check out BSD, or gNewSense.

Dare I say, Ubuntu can't be perfect for everyone ... not even the people who need absolute free stuff ...

[ronacc]

So what? It's just an EULA. So fuss for nothing.

Do you expect all the software in Ubuntu to adhere to GPL? Extremist ideologists that give a bad name to Linux.

And, I actually find it funny that people are talking about replacing Firefox.

it is not the EULA that is the bone of contention it is the default part . I have nothing against EULA's or propriatary software I am not an extreme purist I use propriatary software in Ubuntu ( Opera and the real acroread come to mind) but I do it by CHOICE they are not shoved in my face during install , by all means keep FF prominately available , but does it need to be the default? it is rapidly taking "market share" from IE in windows but MS sure a heck don't install it by default and even windows weenies seem to be able to find it all by themselves .

[andrewabc]

for people saying switch to google chrome:

What exactly is preventing google from enforcing its EULA to show up when first started just like firefox is now?
I presume google owns the copyright or trademark for the brand "chrome" and I'm guessing the icon as well?

Or you think google is somehow better than mozilla?
Such a stupid argument.

[northern lights]

So what? It's just an EULA. So fuss for nothing.

Do you expect all the software in Ubuntu to adhere to GPL? Extremist ideologists that give a bad name to Linux.

While you certainly don't have to share 100% of Stallmann's approach to FOSS and patenting, I think it's a bit off to propose that such ideologists give a bad name to GNU/Linux.
Please elucidate on how advocating freedom can have adverse effects on FOSS?!

[plun]

So what? It's just an EULA. So fuss for nothing.

Do you expect all the software in Ubuntu to adhere to GPL? Extremist ideologists that give a bad name to Linux.

And, I actually find it funny that people are talking about replacing Firefox.

Well.. this is 100% "bulls eye" about this tragic story. Thanks !

Also... just remove the EULA, Mozilla Corporation will not sue users to a court, or Canonical/Ubuntu.

Just sad...:(

[Thelasko]

If I cared about licensing, I would use Debian. I use Ubuntu because the programs I need/want "just work."

[No0b1k]

Ups i ticked the wrong box... i meant to tick the yes box..

Cumps [[]]:popcorn:

[beast2k]

Maybe it's time to try something new, why cant we use the default gnome browser (I can't recall the name) I would like to see more devellopment in that direction.

[cmat]

I've been quite happily been using epiphany for some time now. It's fantastic and renders pages very well.

[maybeway36]

I would be totally fine with Iceweasel, just as long as it works the same way. I suppose it doesn't matter since I use Konqueror :)

[Bios Element]

People get over your "OMFG it's IE!" Screaming fit. They've decided they want to protect their name and their product. Good for them! If they can pull this off they'll get more people to come and design OSS Without fear of losing their product.

[money2themax]

has anyone read he Google Chrome EULA i think every one who said Google Chrome should look at that oh yeah it has a EULA so your just running to another EULA

[aysiu]

I don't have a problem with EULAs existing, but why does one have to be an annoying pop-up?

Ubuntu has a trademark and wants to protect it. Yet it doesn't bug you with an EULA pop-up when you first boot it up. Instead, it classily has the trademark policy posted on its website:
http://www.ubuntu.com/aboutus/trademarkpolicy

And Mozilla also has its trademark policy posted on its website:
http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/policy.html

Why not just leave it there? Why does it need to be a pop-up the first time you start the browser? Few people read through those things anyway.

[ubername]

It seems to me like a shout for nowt as they might say in the part of Yorkshire (UK) I am in . I use nVidia graphics 'off message'' so I'm not bothered whether I have to accept an EULA for firefox, but nor am I bothered if I have to have a different browser as the default so long as I can install another which requires an EULA.

[mike1234]

for people saying switch to google chrome:

What exactly is preventing google from enforcing its EULA to show up when first started just like firefox is now?
I presume google owns the copyright or trademark for the brand "chrome" and I'm guessing the icon as well?

Or you think google is somehow better than mozilla?
Such a stupid argument.

I wasn't suggesting replacing FF with Chrome because it's "better". I was hinting at having options. Standard practice in any business is not limiting yourself to one supplier. Or in other words a little competition. I think FF might stop and think if another major Linux OS balks at their licensing farce. Not that Google EULA isn't screwed up either.

M.

[r_a_trip]

People, this isn't about recognition or the contributions from Mozilla or the GPL and what violates it.

This is about Mozilla slapping its users in the face with a fluff piece of screaming legalese, which does exactly zilch to protect their trademark. If the text has no legal bearing, why include it? Isn't regular trademark law enough for Moz. Corp? It is about Mozilla being obnoxious.

Mozilla has no need for the annoying piece of text to be shown. It is just an immature piece of posturing from an organization that has just become big enough to cast a faint shadow. They need to be reminded that their users made them big and that their users decide their fate.

One simple thing to remind them of the importance of their users is to reject their little fox picture and short name for a while, until they remove their ego stroking piece of useless legalese.

If Firefox comes with the fluff piece intact in 8.10, I'll just rip Firefox and replace it with an unbranded version. I don't like it when someone screams at me "Listen to me, because I think I'm important."

Disclaimer: IANAL.

[ubuntu-freak]

It's not ideal to have a EULA in the default Ubuntu installation, which is why a developer marked it as a bug when he saw it. Shuttleworth has said it's not a big deal, but also thinks a EULA is a crappy way for Mozilla to protect the name "Firefox" and the logo.

Reference: Bug #269656 (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/firefox-3.0/+bug/269656)

[b3n87]

look look!!!

http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2008/09/16/firefox-without-eulas-update/

[Jojan]

look look!!!

http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2008/09/16/firefox-without-eulas-update/

We’ve come to understand that anything EULA-like is disturbing, even if the content is FLOSS based. So we’re eliminating that. We still feel that something about the web services integrated into the browser is needed; these services can be turned off and not interrupt the flow of using the browser. We also want to tell people about the FLOSS license — as a notice, not as as EULA or use restriction. Again, this won’t block the flow or provide the unwelcoming feeling that one comment to my previous post described so eloquently.

[Brunellus]

threads merged.

[ubuntu-freak]

threads merged.


What happened to the post I was replying to?

[jespdj]

My opinion: The Mozilla Foundation and Canonical should work this out together, and Firefox should remain the default browser in Ubuntu.

Otherwise they could name it... TBFKAF - The Browser Formerly Known As Firefox

[DoubleClicker]

I think it's a little late to change directions for 8.10, but for 9.04 I would like to see firefox replaced as the default browser. If Canonical would devote some resources toward development of Webkit and Midori, , such that the were stable and feature complete enough by the jaunty freeze date, then I think Midori would be an excellent choice.

[money2themax]

read this Mozilla: Firefox license in Ubuntu was 'giant error' (http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10044054-92.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20)

[_sAm_]

Image yourself starting up a livecd, and then you had to agree every time on some trademarks or whatever for every program you start. No thanks, then I vote for using Debians verison of Firefox(Iceweasel), witch is just the same browser but without the logo Mozilla use. Or perhaps Epiphany witch will be faster then FF in next version of Ubuntu thanks to Webkit.

[god0fgod]

Opera would be perfect if flash worked fine in it. It crashes all the time. Annoys me slightly, especially as Opera it such a fine browser.

But I think it will and probably should always stay with Firefox. It's well known and new users wouldn't be as scared lol

[ubuntu-freak]

Opera would be perfect if flash worked fine in it. It crashes all the time. Annoys me slightly, especially as Opera it such a fine browser.

But I think it will and probably should always stay with Firefox. It's well known and new users wouldn't be as scared lol


Opera is non-free and QT.

I'd rather Firefox be rebranded "Ubuntu Web Browser", but still identify itself as Firefox to websites. I don't like the name "Iceweasel", as it sounds like an attack on Mozilla Corp.

[aysiu]

Opera is non-free and QT.

I'd rather Firefox be rebranded "Ubuntu Web Browser", but still identify itself as Firefox to websites. I don't like the name "Iceweasel", as it sounds like an attack on Mozilla Corp.
I don't know if IceWeasel was originally intended to be an attack or not, but there's also IceApe and IceDove. I can't imagine IceDove is meant to be an insult to Thunderbird.

[starcannon]

Even Ubuntu/Canonical require one to request permission when using the brand for commercial reasons. This is as it should be, a brand isn't just about the sticker, in many cases it represents communities and philosophies; it is good and just to protect ones image.

Firefox should remain imho.

[ubuntu-freak]

I don't know if IceWeasel was originally intended to be an attack or not, but there's also IceApe and IceDove. I can't imagine IceDove is meant to be an insult to Thunderbird.


They all sound like mild attacks on Mozilla Corp. to me. "Thunderbird" is a powerful name, whereas "IceDove" sounds soft and weak. The word "ape" is used as an insult sometimes, as is the word "weasel".

Maybe I analyse things too much. :)

[chris4585]

If FireFox goes to QT there'll be absolutely NO WAY I'll ever use it then ... if that happens, it looks like I'll have to get rather cozy with a different browser.


If you can't tell, I have a rather dislike for kde ... I'm a 100% gnome fan. If firefox goes QT, it won't be a very nice thing for me to hear about.

If firefox uses QT, then that would be a sad day... I'd probably dislike Mozilla then, or at least make two versions, one QT and one GTK

[ubuntu-freak]

Even Ubuntu/Canonical require one to request permission when using the brand for commercial reasons. This is as it should be, a brand isn't just about the sticker, in many cases it represents communities and philosophies; it is good and just to protect ones image.

Firefox should remain imho, to boot them for simply putting in a EULA about their brand would be a bit hypocritical for Canonical to do no?


No. :)

It sets a bad precident and shouldn't be in the form of a EULA, anyway.

It's just so silly. We don't need to accept a EULA to accept the fact that Mozilla Corp own the name "Firefox" and it's logo.

[kef_kf]

i'd keep using firefox even if mozilla decided to shove their eula in my face but i just wouldn't like them anymore.

why do they assume that i *must* know that they hold the copyrights to the firefox name and logo, how does this help mozilla or the end user? i mean the people who would alter and re-distribute software know that they have to abide by certain agreements and most regular users know it is mozilla firefox as it says so on the title bar (and various other places). what's the point of reminding the users with a pop-up, one of the most annoying ways to deliver information?

i find the help>about menu suitable and adequate for this kinda stuff.

[tom66]

I think Ubuntu should keep it.

I have no problem about this whole trademark thing. Artwork is different to software. Logos, names, etc. must be trademarked to protect them; not doing so is foolish, and leaving you open to attack from competitors, and other malicious people. As far as I know, you can simply compile Firefox without branding if you are really in need of completely free software, but I'm not. As long as the code's open source, that's ok.

[money2themax]

I think Ubuntu should keep it.

I have no problem about this whole trademark thing. Artwork is different to software. Logos, names, etc. must be trademarked to protect them; not doing so is foolish, and leaving you open to attack from competitors, and other malicious people. As far as I know, you can simply compile Firefox without branding if you are really in need of completely free software, but I'm not. As long as the code's open source, that's ok.
see now that's someone looking at this from a realistic stand point

[soxs]

see now that's someone looking at this from a realistic stand point

It's not about it being a necessity to protect art, it's about an unrequired EULA blah_blubb (all written IN CAPS) whichc is legaly totaly ineffective, as the normal user just clicks accept and goes on, which renders the whole thing useless as such an EULA requires you to _understand_ it, which isn't given as you didn't read it at all so you can't be damnished in court. (Sry, but I lack proper english to explain such ... complex iuristical problems) At least in finland it's like that.
Good Luck Mozilla, go and dy! We are the users! We made it strong, and we will be the ones to choose it's fate, be it its further rise.. or fall!

[Canis familiaris]

i would be delighted if firefox went to qt. It's about time ubuntu actually packaged a browser that fits its release cycle, integrates with gnome and runs without hanging the entire environment. (oh, and while we're at it, it would be nice if said browser cared more about its linux audience than its windows audience, which is not the case with firefox because windows has the bigger share of users).

I would rather we start using a different web browser than just rebrand firefox. While lots of people use it for the interface, one of the reasons it is default is name recognition. Having a differently named, slightly different looking browser that feels like firefox (except broken, because firefox under gnome has always paled in comparison to a gnome-centric browser like epiphany) would feel a lot like learning that your new ipod is actually a cheap knockoff. Tsclient and openoffice's options dialog are quite enough cheap knockoffs of proprietary windows software. Let's not have cheap knockoffs of open source software.
+1

Anyway it does not matter to me much since I use Opera and it will probably never be bundled with Ubuntu.

[irrdev]

It appears that this is no longer an issue! Yay! \\:D/ Mozilla Chair Mitchell Baker wrote an "apology", or pretty close to an apology, on her blog. It appears that Mozilla won't be enforcing any more EULA agreements on Firefox with Ubuntu. You can read the "apology" here (http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2008/09/15/ubuntu-firefox-and-license-issues/) and there is an updated blog post here (http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2008/09/16/firefox-without-eulas-update/).:popcorn:

UPDATE: OK, Mozilla has gotten rid of the EULA, and instead there will be a small notice integrated into the post-install Firefox homepage which will state that the Firefox logo/name are copyright Mozilla. There are two different mockups being considered for this notice - MOCKUP 1 (http://lockshot.wordpress.com/2008/09/17/licensing-proposal/) or MOCKUP 2 (http://lockshot.wordpress.com/2008/09/17/licensing-proposal-notice-page-screen-shot/). These mockups were introduced on Mozilla Chair Mitchell Bakers' blog (http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2008/09/17/mock-ups-available-for-notices-previously-was-eula/).

I hope that this "possibly not include firefox in next release" is no longer a consideration.

[PryGuy]

Firefox is:
a. Stable
b. Uses GTK
c. Easy to use
d. Cool!

I personally will survive with EULA, though it starts smelling The Famous Company. We'll see...

[dasunst3r]

1. It's much ado about nothing
2. I don't care if people use Qt, GTK, Mono, etc. As long as they can present the program's interface in a consistent manner, then I'm fine.

[PryGuy]

Have you seen the Mozilla Firefox EULA by the way? Could you post it here if so?

[Cannaregio]

1) Anyone that has actually used Opera knows that Opera is BY FAR better and waaay quicker than Firefox.
2) But Opera is not Open source.

So the anti-stallman gang here would be even better served by simply ditching firefox and switching to opera: if you couldn't care less about freedom, why stick with a second choice browser like firefox (or MSIE for that matter)? Use the absolute best, i.e. Opera, especially given it is free (as in beer) and has everything out of the box without flimsy plugins. Principles be damned.

3) The attempt to introduce with Firefox a (badly written) eula in a major GNU/Linux distribution was not only an error, as Mozilla WAS now COMPELLED to aknowledge, it was something insulting and demeaning. Bad taste, and more worringly: a bad precedent. Enough to switch to an higher level of "debian purity" à la Iceweasel.

So there are imho only 2 alternatives at the moment: go for the best (Opera) or go for the pure and holy (Iceweasel). No need to stick with no meat and no fish Firefox.

[irrdev]

1) Anyone that has actually used Opera knows that Opera is BY FAR better and quicker than Firefox.
2) But Opera is not Open source.

So the anti-stallman gang here would be even better served by simply ditching firefox and switching to opera: if you couldn't care less about freedom, why stick with a second choice browser like firefox (or MSIE for that matter)? Use the absolute best, i.e. Opera, especially given it is free (as in beer). Principles be damned.

3) The attempt to introduce with Firefox a (badly written) eula in a major GNU/Linux distribution was not only an error, as Mozilla WAS now COMPELLED to aknowledge, it was something insulting and demeaning. Bad taste, and more worringly: a bad precedent. Enough to switch to a more "debian purity" à la Iceweasel.

So there are imho only 2 alternatives at the moment: go for the best (Opera) or go for the pure (Iceweasel). No need to stick with no meat and no fish Firefox.

Sorry, but I can't accept that Opera is better than Firefox. More innovative? Maybe, or at least that used to be the case. Opera does deserve credit for tabbed browsing and implementing the web standards. However, that is as far as it goes. Aside from a commercial and closed-source background, Opera doesn't have the 5,000+ extensions Firefox does by developing the XUL api. Sorry, but widgets simply don't do it, they don't actually integrate into the browser. Firefox is for me a clear pick.

[enlightenment now]

We should learn from PC-BSD, they have already solved this dilemma:

Upon install they give you the choice which Web Browser you prefer to install, the two that I always pick that I can remember from their choices are:

1. Opera

2. Firefox

Simple solution and easily implemented.

[billgoldberg]

Well I just got done reading this: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=NjcxOA

And it makes me think that there needs to be two choices when you're installing ubuntu. Have good ol' Firefox and then have something like iceweasel in addition.

What do you guys think should happen?

Should Ubuntu stick with a Firefox that requires you accept their trademark agreement, or should Ubuntu switch to a web browser that needs not have a trademark agreement?

They should use Epiphany as a standard browser!

The new version uses Webkit. And it has ad blockers, mouse gesture, ...

[billgoldberg]

Actually I don't think Ubuntu will use Firefox in a future release. Mainly because I think Firefox is going to use Qt by default in future, from what I've read that is anyway

I forgot about that.

Damn, first VLC, now firefox.

When will this QT monster stop?

--

Another reason to use Epiphany. We can be sure that will stay Gtk :p

--

Nice new avatar btw.

[Saint Angeles]

ive used firefox even while running windows xp, mac OS X, and ubuntu.

why the crap wouldn't they include firefox?

i do like swiftweasel though.

[irrdev]

I wish users would read this thread in entirety! The "forced" Mozilla EULA is no longer an issue, and Firefox is NOT switching over to QT, despite the rumors spread by KDE enthusiasts who want to replace Konqueror!

Please, read this entire thread before commenting!

[enlightenment now]

Please, read this entire thread before commenting!

That's a bit much to ask.

Why not just ask the OP to edit the first post?

[vishzilla]

Check this post out. This is what we'll possibly get on first run [link (http://lockshot.wordpress.com/2008/09/17/licensing-proposal-notice-page-screen-shot/)] "A Notice"

[chris4585]

Nokia helps port firefox to Qt http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080818-nokia-helps-port-firefox-to-qt.html

[Canis familiaris]

The thing I can't understand why so many people hate Qt? In my experience, it has intergrated pretty well with GNOME (Qt4 i.e.).
Also the new VLC is nice...

[ukripper]

firefox as default is fine!

[ukripper]

The thing I can't understand why so many people hate Qt? In my experience, it has intergrated pretty well with GNOME (Qt4 i.e.).
Also the new VLC is nice...

Not qt in general but kde has many quirks, especially KDE4.1

[Cannaregio]

Sorry, but I can't accept that Opera is better than Firefox. More innovative? Maybe, or at least that used to be the case. Opera does deserve credit for tabbed browsing and implementing the web standards. However, that is as far as it goes. Aside from a commercial and closed-source background, Opera doesn't have the 5,000+ extensions Firefox does by developing the XUL api. Sorry, but widgets simply don't do it, they don't actually integrate into the browser. Firefox is for me a clear pick.

I can write more or less the same, and with even more gusto:

Sorry, but I can't accept that Firefox is better than Opera.
I suggest you use Opera and check by yourself. I do use Firefox (when I am at work and compelled to use windows) and I am well aware of the huge difference in quality between these browsers: Opera is better and quicker.

THANKS GOD Opera doesn't have (nor needs) the 5,000+ extension craps Firefox does. They don't actually integrate into the browser. Opera is for me a clear pick. See? Your words turned round.

Fact is (try it) that the amazing speed of Opera put that browser into a category apart, you should never underestimate the importance of speedy browsing in a web full of commercial crap.

But in fact the point was what to do in the next release after this insulting eula faux pas by the morons at Mozilla. I repeat: either the best (but alas not GNU compliant) browser (and then Opera, not Firefox) or "a good" but pure and holy browser (and then Iceweasel, not Firefox).

[ubuntu-freak]

We should learn from PC-BSD, they have already solved this dilemma:

Upon install they give you the choice which Web Browser you prefer to install, the two that I always pick that I can remember from their choices are:

1. Opera

2. Firefox

Simple solution and easily implemented.

Good idea - if there is room to include others. Having Epiphany as a choice would make more sense, though.

[Canis familiaris]

i can write more or less the same, and with even more gusto:

Sorry, but i can't accept that firefox is better than opera.
I suggest you use opera and check by yourself. I do use firefox (when i am at work and compelled to use windows) and i am well aware of the huge difference in quality between these browsers: Opera is better and quicker.

Thanks god opera doesn't have (nor needs) the 5,000+ extension craps firefox does. They don't actually integrate into the browser. Opera is for me a clear pick. See? Your words turned round.

Fact is (try it) that the amazing speed of opera put that browser into a category apart, you should never underestimate the importance of speedy browsing in a web full of commercial crap.

But in fact the point was what to do in the next release after this insulting eula faux pas by the morons at mozilla. I repeat: Either the best (but alas not gnu compliant) browser (and then opera, not firefox) or "a good" but pure and holy browser (and then iceweasel, not firefox).
+1

[ubuntu-freak]

I can write more or less the same, and with even more gusto:

Sorry, but I can't accept that Firefox is better than Opera.
I suggest you use Opera and check by yourself. I do use Firefox (when I am at work and compelled to use windows) and I am well aware of the huge difference in quality between these browsers: Opera is better and quicker.

THANKS GOD Opera doesn't have (nor needs) the 5,000+ extension craps Firefox does. They don't actually integrate into the browser. Opera is for me a clear pick. See? Your words turned round.

Fact is (try it) that the amazing speed of Opera put that browser into a category apart, you should never underestimate the importance of speedy browsing in a web full of commercial crap.

But in fact the point was what to do in the next release after this insulting eula faux pas by the morons at Mozilla. I repeat: either the best (but alas not GNU compliant) browser (and then Opera, not Firefox) or "a good" but pure and holy browser (and then Iceweasel, not Firefox).

+1/2 :)

I just don't like Opera in GNOME. Loved it when I was a Windows user, though.

[yaztromo]

Voted: other browser.
Why not Epiphany?;)

Because it doesn't have the half features I'm used to in Firefox. It would be a sad day to use such a poor browser by default.

My stance: If Ubuntu moves away from Firefox I would be gone in a flash to another distro. I'm more than happy to spend 0.5 seconds clicking yes to an EULA for all the time Firefox has given me.

I seem to remember clicking yes to agreements every other day in Windows and I can't remember that ever bothering me much, or ever coming back to bite me.

Edit: For those that are calling for Opera the problem is that it just doesn't fit in with GNOME/XFCE's GTK gui. (It doesn't even fit in with Windows XP either) I also am of the opinion a lot of opera users are elitist about their niche browser and tend to defend it to the death even though it is still a poorer browser than firefox.

[ubuntu-freak]

Because it doesn't have the half features I'm used to in Firefox. It would be a sad day to use such a poor browser by default.

My stance: If Ubuntu moves away from Firefox I would be gone in a flash to another distro. I'm more than happy to spend 0.5 seconds clicking yes to an EULA for all the time Firefox has given me.

I seem to remember clicking yes to agreements every other day in Windows and I can't remember that ever bothering me much, or ever coming back to bite me.

Edit: For those that are calling for Opera the problem is that it just doesn't fit in with GNOME/XFCE's GTK gui. (It doesn't even fit in with Windows XP either) I also am of the opinion a lot of opera users are elitist about their niche browser and tend to defend it to the death even though it is still a poorer browser than firefox.


You would switch distros if Firefox wasn't installed by default? Do you realise how pathetic that sounds?

Edit: It would still be Firefox, anyway, the devs may just rebrand it. Let's just wait and see.

[Canis familiaris]

Edit: For those that are calling for Opera the problem is that it just doesn't fit in with GNOME/XFCE's GTK gui. (It doesn't even fit in with Windows XP either)
Not really. Opera runs very fast in GNOME as well as Xfce and does not by any means looks out of place. A little different layout of colours, yes. But it compromises in Speed, Stability and features.


I also am of the opinion a lot of opera users are elitist about their niche browser and tend to defend it to the death even though it is still a poorer browser than firefox.
FAIL.
Isn't that comment used against Linux Users as well?
Stop making sterotypes.

[Datalanche]

I think it would be unfortunate for Firefox to not be included, as it does/can add one more thing for new users to recognize and feel more "at home", but installing Firefox on its own is a relatively simple thing to do. A shame Mozilla is taking this stance on it, though. Seems a little... proprietary. :mad:

[eragon100]

this so-called "issue" is closed -- mozilla decided to remove the eula from firefox after all, and called it stupid. For the next update and on, the eula will not be displayed anymore.

[aysiu]

this so-called "issue" is closed -- mozilla decided to remove the eula from firefox after all, and called it stupid. For the next update and on, the eula will not be displayed anymore.
And with that, I'm going to close this extremely long thread.