The Mozilla people want to be stupid and shoot themselves in the foot. That's their choice. Ubuntu need not be stupid along with them. I see the argument above that the Ubuntu experience is less good without the Firefox name. I counter that it damages the Ubuntu experience significantly to have EULAs shown to users for ANY reason. That's the WHOLE, ENTIRE difference, from a user's experience, between Windows and Linux: when using one of them, you're always clicking "I Agree" on pages of ALL CAPS text in tiny print, and when using the other one, you don't have to do that. If Ubuntu is going to the EULA model, what exactly is the advantage?
"Okay Timmy, this is Ubuntu, it's free. It's not all restricted like Windows." "What's that? A license agreement? Looks just like Windows." "Well, that's not really as restrictive as the Windows ones, if you read all the pages of tiny print carefully, you'll see this one isn't as bad as..." "Looks the same to me." Firefox needs to head off to the repositories entitled non-free, restricted, and crappy. EULAs do severe damage to the Ubuntu brand, the Linux brand, and the FOSS brand. -- 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 ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
