[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
I think two things need to be added. First: All this should be easy to find under Help -> About. Second: As I understand it, when the service is turned on, Firefox contacts Google once every half hour (or some such) to update the blacklist. This should be mentioned. By contacting Google, the browser informs Google about our browsing-time habits. This lets Google add some more details to its already vast repository of statistics on our habits, interests and other privacy- sensitive data. Some people feel that it’s risky for our civil liberties that such huge amounts of private information gets concentrated at one entity. Because of this, such things must always be told very openly. People have a right to know about these things and decide for themselves. It may be unimportant when it's only used for serving ads, but important for someone who feels politically persecuted. That's for each person to decide. The information on Firefox doing this must be very openly available. The text should mention whether the only identifying information in these contacts is the user's IP address, or whether there's a more uniquely identifying cookie or some such. In fact I wish that instead Firefox contacted Canonical or Mozilla to update the blacklist, and Canonical or Mozilla got the list from Google. Privacy information should be spread out among many different entities, not concentrated at one entity. -- 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
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
Maybe the following can help a little in clarifying where the problem is and what is needed. I think the most important drawback of a click-and-accept EULA is that it shatters the wonderfully welcoming experience of installing Ubuntu. I migrated from Windows to Ubuntu somewhat recently. I was delighted by the impression that loving care had been put into offering me a carefully composed system, with a beautiful theme, along with impressive repositories where I can feel warmly welcome any time I want to add something to my system. All in all it was an amazing and joyous experience. And this happy experience was much more important than the money saved. It made me warmly enthusiastic about Ubuntu in a way that I had never expected. In this context, a series of click-through EULAs for various applications would become seriously jarring. Very little of that warmly welcoming feeling would survive. It would be almost as bad if there's a first Web page that pushes me down with wordings like "you are consenting to be bound by the Agreement". It's very different if software that I pick and choose from the repositories shows such EULAs. As long as it's a minority among the applications, and doesn't grow out of hand, it won't mar the feeling of a welcoming Ubuntu, since it's something outside Ubuntu that I pick myself. Then if I don't like the conditions and prefer to uninstall the software, I know clearly that the consequence of this choice is limited to the removal of that particular software. But if it happens while I'm installing Ubuntu itself, it will inevitably ruin that delightful experience. Having said that, maybe the default browser can go to a special first page without marring the experience. In the Fedora solution, the wording of their first page is unwelcoming and unclear, in my view. But it might work if instead it's worded as an offer to protect me against phishers, adding to this the caveat that this requires a polling that could theoretically reveal the times when I'm online and offline. If it's a concretely explained offer to help me, with a concretely worded caveat, the feeling of warm welcome remains. The Fedora text and the Agreement that it links to make a serious mistake, in that they don't mention anti-phishing. The wording is so vague that it's impossible for the user to understand what he's "agreeing" to. This renders the "agreement" legally void, and so its only effect is to cause feelings of uncertainty. Speak up! Explain clearly! Use concrete wordings! And ban the lawyers except for final vetting. -- 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
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
Chip Bennet said: 'Services - AKA "Software Servies", AKA "Software as a Service (Saas)" - are nothing more than software applications that are installed on a remote server rather than the local machine. As software applications, they are either open- or closed-source. They are either free or non- free.' You say that they are "nothing more than software". On the contrary, they are far more than just software. The service consists of server hardware and maintenance, network connectivity and bandwidth, the collecting of blacklisting data and its quality assurance, dealing with people who feel wrongly blacklisted and related legal repercussions, dealing with language issues and legal consequences of having a presence around the world, coordinating all this, and so on and on and on. The software is just a tiny component in a large and complicated operation. That term "non-free service" is mistaken because the GPL meaning of "free" isn't applicable to the server bandwidth, the international language and legal dealings, and all the other parts of the service. Both legally and philosophically they are different worlds, since the MPL and (A)GPL are copyright licenses, while the mockup's "Website Services Agreement" very definitely isn't. However I do think that there's a very valid and important issue here. It's just a different issue than a "non-free service". The very interesting issue here is whether it's okay to connect people to a service without asking them, and, if you do this, whether it's okay to claim that by having been automatically connected they have agreed to the terms. As I see it, it's very, very unfortunate if the browser must be delivered with the service turned off by default. It would make the service quite useless, because those who most need it would certainly not turn it on. Phishers and other scammers would thrive. However it seems rather nonsensical to claim that by having been automatically connected to the service you agree to its terms. It seems far better if the text instead explains what the service is and what it does, and explains how you can turn it off if you prefer, worded in such a way that it becomes very clear and obvious that you can opt out if you don't want the service or don't like how it works. Then if you read that, and choose to leave it enabled, clearly you are accepting the service. It becomes the same thing as the old text, but with much more reasonable wording. Of course most users won't read it, and so they aren't actually choosing to accept it. But I don't think that's much of a problem. When you install Ubuntu, you are implicitly accepting a huge amount of functionality without being asked about each functionality. You accept that others have made tons of choices for you. Very likely this service can be one more on this huge pile of implicitly accepted functionality. In essence, by installing Ubuntu you implicitly agree to Ubuntu's defaults, except where you change them. -- 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
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
@unimatrix9: "Would it have been better for firefox to move anti- phishing non free software to the add-ons that you install on choice?" The anti-phishing does not involve any restricted software inside Firefox. All of the restricted software is on Google's servers. The software inside Firefox is free. Firefox consults the service that is described at http://code.google.com/apis/safebrowsing/ (or something similar). The code inside Firefox that does this is free software. The purists are worried that the software on Google's servers is restricted. The purists feel that because Google hasn't released their _server_ software, this makes Google's service non-free. They feel that Firefox becomes non-free just because it connects to servers that run non-free software. My opinion is that such a purist view is extreme and impractical. I don't want my free software to be restricted to contacting only servers that run free software. I think this would be a very severe restriction. I'm delighted that I'm invited and welcome to install huge lots of free- as-in-freedom software on my system, but I don't want to insist that every server that I contact do the same, nor do I feel that Firefox becomes any less free because of restrictions on Google's server software. -- 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
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
@ Chip Bennet: "My contention is that Firefox *may* become non-free because it has services enabled that require the end user either accept their use terms, or else disable those services." This is certainly much more interesting and important. (Unfortunately I can't help you start this discussion, I don't have much to say about it (yet).) However I don't agree with you that "non-free service" and "freedom" are suitable terms for services. I think "free" causes confusion rather than clarity. It sounds like you mean "free as in the GPL", to which the necessary reply must be "the GPL doesn't apply". We do need a term, but "free" is too confusing. "Enabling those services is - at most - as simple as checking a configuration check box." People tend to interpret the defaults as a very strong recommendation. When people are uncertain about the consequences of touching a setting, many will see the default as a recommendation that you should disobey only if you have a really compelling reason, and only if you have thought through all the consequences with great care. As a consequence, the people who need this service will generally be afraid to touch the setting, and will only very rarely turn it on. Meanwhile those who don't need the service can turn it off very easily, for them it's quite trivial. @ jackb_guppy: "FireFox is non-free in it default configuration. Any attemp by the software to contact a server that I do not request, is in my mind thief- of-services. I can not stop FireFox from doing this before load ubuntu or calling firefox. I must access first then after my IP has been recorded and counted, I am allowed to not use it." I get the impression that Ubuntu isn't the right distro for you. Ubuntu aims to be convenient and easily accessible. You're looking for maximum stealth. For example, very soon after installation Ubuntu will look for updates at some server near you, without asking you, and you can't choose which server. I find this convenient and acceptable. Apparently you don't. In my opinion the Firefox anti-phishing service is quite comparable to this. "Nor does it appear I have choice to use another provider without distoring the use of trademark." The GPL does allow trademark restrictions. You'd need to find software that is published under a license that forbids trademark restrictions. I don't think you can find that, because I don't think such a license could be made practically useful and viable. Certainly Ubuntu is not the solution: http://www.ubuntu.com/aboutus/trademarkpolicy However it does seem that Mozilla uses trademark policies that are far more restrictive than necessary and clash badly with established FOSS practices. See http://lockshot.wordpress.com/2008/09/15/firefox-eula-in- linux-distributions/#comment-46 (but that discussion is about the previous Firefox EULA, it's not about the latest solution). -- 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
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
If a new name is needed, maybe a better name would be The Ubuntu Fox. Or maybe, in a similar vein, UbuntuFox. * This uses the two strong brands Ubuntu and Firefox. * It suggests quite clearly that it's a version of Firefox that has been adapted by Ubuntu for Ubuntu. * It makes it very clear that Mozilla and Firefox are not responsible for the adaptations made by Ubuntu. * It gives recognition to Mozilla and Firefox. * It's kinda cute. -- 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
[Bug 575563] [NEW] Window management stops working after upgrade to Lucid
Public bug reported: Binary package hint: metacity (Beware: The bug appears on a different kernel than the one reported by ubuntu-bug. Details below.) After I upgraded from Karmic to Lucid, then after every boot, mouse clicking and Alt-Tab work fine in the beginning, but very soon, only the item that has keyboard focus responds to the mouse. The rest of the computer becomes almost a brick, but not entirely. It seems the mouse buttons and Alt-Tab work fine until I click on one of the thin strips at the top and the bottom of the screen, or click inside a window. After that point, only the item that has keyboard focus responds. More details below. I suppose this is a severe bug, since non-technical users won't know how to get around the problem, and won't be able to use their Ubuntu to look for a solution. For them, the upgrade produces a brick. WORKAROUND: The problem appears when I boot with the kernel that sits at the top of the boot list after the upgrade, kernel 2.6.32-21-generic. I have not seen any similar problems when booting with the preceding kernel, 2.6.31-21-generic. (During this latter boot some errors are reported, but the system seems to work fine so far.) My system as reported by ubuntu-bug is the exact machine and partition that has the bug, but using the above workaround. I have only made a few limited tests, since I have no idea what tests will be helpful, and every test requires a time-consuming reboot. Here's a detailed list of the symptoms I've seen: After boot, clicking on window titlebars works right, windows can be raised and dragged. If I then click an icon in the thin strip at the top of the screen, the application starts fine, but after this point, mouse clicking works only on the icons in the thin bar at the top. Nothing else anywhere on the screen responds to the mouse. After boot, if I open the Applications menu with Alt-F1, and start applications with arrow and return keys, I can do this several times to open several applications. After this, I can use the mouse several times on the titlebars of different windows to drag, focus and raise the windows. Alt-Tab works right too. But if I then click inside a Firefox window, so that the webpage gets focus, I can no longer use the mouse to raise and drag windows. Then the thin strips at screen top and bottom don't respond to the mouse either. Alt-Tab stops working too. At this point I tested Alt-F1, and saw the "Applications" word get highlighted, but I could not see any menu below. Either the menu didn't appear at all, or else it may have appeared hidden behind the window that had focus, because that window happened to cover the space where the menu should appear. After boot, if I click one of the running-application buttons in the thin bar at the bottom of the screen, then after this point only those buttons respond to the mouse buttons. Clicking windows or the strip at the top of the screen has no effect. Clicking the buttons in the bottom strip minimizes and unminimizes windows as it should, at least when clicking the same button several times. I don't remember if I tested on several buttons to see if other buttons worked right. In all cases, at the end of the test I could reboot using Ctrl-Alt-Del followed by arrow keys and return key. Please tell me if you'd like me to test something in more detail or submit log files etc. My knowledge of these things is limited, so I don't know what may be useful to you. ProblemType: Bug DistroRelease: Ubuntu 10.04 Package: metacity 1:2.30.1-0ubuntu1 ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 2.6.31-21.59-generic Uname: Linux 2.6.31-21-generic x86_64 NonfreeKernelModules: nvidia Architecture: amd64 Date: Wed May 5 03:30:56 2010 ProcEnviron: PATH=(custom, user) LANG=en_US.UTF-8 SHELL=/bin/bash SourcePackage: metacity ** Affects: metacity (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New ** Tags: amd64 apport-bug lucid -- Window management stops working after upgrade to Lucid https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/575563 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
[Bug 575563] Re: Window management stops working after upgrade to Lucid
** Attachment added: "Dependencies.txt" http://launchpadlibrarian.net/47836031/Dependencies.txt -- Window management stops working after upgrade to Lucid https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/575563 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
[Bug 575563] Re: Window management stops working after upgrade to Lucid
Narwhal has the same problem. But just now I stumbled upon something that hopefully can help you find and remove this bug easily. Judging by discussions on websites it seems many people have had this problem, so although my discovery solves the problem for me, if you can remove the bug entirely I think this would be very good, so people don't give up on Ubuntu. I'll be glad to help if I can, for instance by testing, sending logs, anything that may be useful. The bug is somehow related to a hardware speed setting on the mouse itself. By pressing a button (tiny, invisible, and forgotten long ago) on the mouse, I can switch between three settings for how far the pointer should move as I move the mouse. It turns out that Narwhal only supports the slowest setting correctly. With the other two settings it does accelerate the pointer, and when it does react to clicking, the click reaction happens at the correct position where the pointer is, but the system refuses to transfer focus among windows etc., as described in the report. However, Karmic Koala fully supports all three speed settings. If Narwhal can't easily be made to support them, maybe at least it can be made to not get confused. That would be a huge improvement, since a poorly supported speed button is a very, very minor thing compared to an unusable computer. After I submitted my report I've discovered some more symptoms from this bug, but I'm guessing that the mouse-speed button relationship is enough for you. Please tell me if you'd like me to describe the other symptoms. They're related to when and how the system refuses to transfer focus, among the windows and the screen top and bottom bars. They're a kind of workaround for the focus-transfer problems that I've already described, but only a very partial and somewhat awkward workaround. I have not tested the mouse-speed button solution in Lynx or Meerkat. I'll be glad to help if I can, so that people who test this wonderful Ubuntu don't give up before seeing its wonderfulness. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/575563 Title: Window management stops working after upgrade to Lucid To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/metacity/+bug/575563/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
