As one of the "users" (I submit bug reports when I find em', but for the most part I'm a "USER",) I don't give a damn if there is a EULA or not. I DO give a damn if firefox is included by default or not. It was a big enough deal to me that when debian foisted off "iceweasel" I quit using that distribution entirely. FOSS is great, but when it gets "religious", it gets rediculous.
We users prefer firefox for its add-ons/tabbed browsing and, oh yeah, did I mention, add-ons? If mozilla's EULA is a nag reminder about their trademarked name, it is their name, right? Its one single extra click to either yay/nay, right? Personally, as one of the users, I think this stuff is much ado about nothing. Now if that EULA was a change to indicate that the "fox" is no longer open source/free/etc., then I'd see the complaint. I can think of about a billion things I'd rather the makers/shakers of the distro should be focusing on over this, not the least of which is the SABDFL edict about passing Apple in the "coolness" department. Of course I'm one of those people who actually uses Nvidia's binary drivers as well. ;) Open discourse is always good, but this is this loyal ubuntu user's 2 cents. (And by loyal, I mean since warty.) -- 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
