On Saturday 20 September 2008 4:18:03 pm Remco wrote: > How is the integrated Google Search service any different from the > integrated anti-phishing service? Both come with additional terms. Yet > Google Search is not debated here, while the anti-phishing services are.
The significant difference between the two, as far as I can tell, istwo- fold: 1) The Google search service is enabled, but non-fuctional without explicit user interaction. The Mozilla services are enabled, and are active without any explicit user interaction. 2) The the Google search service does not require the user's explicit assent of the end user license agreement, while the Mozilla services do - in this case, explicit assent, in that the services are left enabled (the EULA instructs that if the user does not agree to the terms, then the services are to be disabled). The Google search service only implies assent if the user actually *uses* the service. If the user does not agree to the terms of use, he can simply not use the services. The Mozilla services *require* that the user disable the services if he does not agree to the terms of use. > Maybe if you could configure from which provider you would like to get > the anti-phishing information, it would be OK. That's the case with the > search bar too. There is nothing standing in the way of adding a search > engine that is a "free service". This is not yet possible with the anti- > phishing service. That is partly why I am suggesting that the Mozilla services should be disabled by default in Ubuntu. If Canonical wants to make a super-simple means of enabling those services (should the user choose to do so), and even strongly suggest that the user do so, I think that is perfectly acceptable behavior. > The problem is that there are no free alternatives. And I'm not > convinced that the current solution is non-free. Also, I don't think > Canonical or Shuttleworth can just come up -on the spot- with a good > definition of a free service and with a policy on them. That needs a lot > of debate. Technically speaking, Canonical/Mark Shuttleworth *can* come up with policy on-the-fly. It's his company, and that is their right. That said, the community certainly doesn't have to *agree* with that policy - and it may not be in the company's best interest to do so. I very well could be wrong, but I'm not sure that, in the end, this issue will be one for which Canonical/Shuttleworth want to burn a lot of community good-will capital. -- 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
