Let's step away from the idealism. This isn't the place to discuss that. (And on that topic, this isn't a discussion board. See mailing list threads on ubuntu-devel-discuss, IRC, forums, etc. whatever floats your boat).
This is fundamentally about user experience. What do we want users to see? Personally, I do not care right now what legal issue is involved with having an EULA in free software. (Last I checked, there is none; this is Mozilla's software and they can do what they want with it. You can do what you want with it: Use it in binary / source form or do not). I don't want users to go through an EULA when they start Firefox because it suggests a lack of cohesion and a lack of polish; it paints Firefox as a part distinctly detached from the rest of Ubuntu. The sad truth is that is indeed the case. (The solution is well known to those who would enact it). However, we don't want users seeing this any more than they have to. When a user downloads and installs Ubuntu, he is told that Ubuntu can be freely used; basically he is given an extremely simple license that seems totally fair. With all default software and drivers shipped at the moment, that can be safely assumed, and it is basically a given that anything added afterwards (eg: universe, restricted and multiverse repos) is under its own terms. Here Firefox's license popup is an exception amongst the default set. Regardless of its content, that produces confusion for the user: Why does Ubuntu (not Firefox, _Ubuntu_) now have two different license agreements so close to its heart, the latter being bleeding complicated and totally not laid back? That is the end user experience I do not want. I don't care about the slippery slope thing. If every application in default had its own license agreement anyway, it may even start to make sense. We would just have to drop the "all software in Ubuntu is..." thing and become complicated like our friends in Redmond. One thing here stands out like a sore thumb, however, and it would be profoundly upsetting if the 'very simple terms' thing was dropped because of one little web browser. Some smart people have been drowned out amongst a storm of baaing sheep. Those people say this EULA is only necessary with regards to phishing protection. Can you guys clarify, please? I think we would all appreciate it. Everyone else, please restrain your immediate yells of rage. Points are heard. Repeating them only drowns out what matters by making this page slower and slower to load. Alas, this post may be too late, since it is now impossible to know whether all the points HAVE been made without spending a day studying the thread; just keeping up with this issue in my email client has given me a headache. Regardless, it's a safe assumption. -- 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
