It would be nice if there was a very brief piece of text that appeared just above the eula explaining that the eula is a requirement of Mozilla Corp and that that those who did not wish to be bound by it could use abrowser instead, and an apturl link to abrowser could be included. I think the explanation is necessary as the eula feels very 'unubuntuy' in fact at first I assumed that its presence was the result of a packaging bug. It would also be nice if there was an obvious way to find the licence again, for those like me who agree in haste, and later want to find out what it was they agreed to. I appreciate the need for the eula, but its presence was really jarring, and the CAPITALS made it worse.
-- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
