** Changed in: firefox
Importance: Unknown => Critical
--
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 maili
To Laurens V.
You do not need to accept any Eula in Ubuntu, you can use abrowser as the same
way you use iceweasel on Debian.
You do not need to upgrade your system each six months, you can use LTS
versions only, which is almost equal to use Debian stable.
--
AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED
Sorry to kick this obsoleted discussion. Unfortunatly I have to admit
that I too, have quit using Ubuntu. To be specific: Xubuntu. I am not
the only one who quit using an Ubuntu distro. My wife who's a dedicated
KDE user quit Kubuntu for the reason Canonical chose KDE4 in stead of
offering the choi
released
** Changed in: ubufox
Status: Fix Committed => Fix Released
--
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.
--
** Changed in: firefox
Status: Unknown => Fix Released
--
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 m
** Changed in: firefox
Bugwatch: Mozilla Bugzilla #439604 => Mozilla Bugzilla #439858
Status: Invalid => Unknown
--
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
** Changed in: firefox
Status: New => Invalid
--
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 li
Lol you said anal
This email was sent from a Palm Centro
-Original Message-
From: blackest_knight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subj: [Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU
FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2008 11:44 am
Size: 1K
To: [EMAIL PRO
The Frankenphishing Service.
>Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
>pj wrote:
>> Since Mark is asking for input on the service, I will tell you that the
>> first thing I do is
>> turn off antiphishing services, along with every other thing that tends to
>> track my
>> surfing. I turn off Javascript and coo
Another piece of information that needs to clear, in accepting the
current push of FireFox, will it reset the flags that are turned off,
forcing you to agree to something you have already not agreed to?
This whole problem has been handled backwards. First forcing EULA, to
get a hidden by default
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 bro
Ante Karamatić wrote:
>
>
> Yet again, Debian doesn't allow me to create a t-shirt with 'Debian
> Official' logo on it. On the other hand, Debian developers do have that right.
>
>
Note how silly a scenario you had to create in order to make your point.
According to Debian's own logo policy[1],
Its been an interesting discussion, thanks for all those involved.
--
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-b
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 18:19:24 -
Brian C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Debian cannot allow special exemptions that
> apply only to Debian or this would leave its users in the lurch with
> less freedom than Debian itself has.
Yet again, Debian doesn't allow me to create a t-shirt with 'Debian
O
Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
> I wasn't part of that decision, so I'm only repeating what I heard,
> which is that Debian simply preferred not to be obliged to discuss their
> changes with Mozilla. I don't think there was any specific change which
> Debian wanted and Mozilla felt was problematic, it wa
To Mark, all,
Well, I have been making too much a point of this. The reason for that
is that the replies I got did not show they understood my main problem
with the situation. No, I don't misunderstand trademark; trademark does
impose limits on the Firefox® product -- and Firefox® is a different
p
I must admit that I had not given much thought to naming and trademarks
in free software earlier. I'm wondering if the situation with Firefox is
any different from other big names which are trademarked, like KDE,
GNOME, Linux, or OpenOffice. I have not heard similar controversies
about them in the
Creak wrote:
> Maybe I'm wrong, but I understood that they did few Debian-specific
> modifications. But as long as they modified Firefox, they can't reuse the
> name.
> If I'm right until then, why don't they send their modifications to Mozilla?
> Mozilla refused?
>
I wasn't part of that decisio
2008/9/24 Mark Shuttleworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> No, if we want to use the Firefox brand, then we must work with Mozilla,
> and that's reasonable. If we don't want to use the brand, they have
> kindly given us lots of rights to the code they have so lovingly produced.
>
I do more and more agree
pj wrote:
> Firefox also *offers optional* web site information services, such as
> blah blah
>
> Instead of:
>
> Firefox also *uses* web site information services
>
Looks like an improvement to me, I'll pass on the suggestion to Mozilla
folks who may not be watching this thread.
> On g
Remco wrote:
> Why do you think Ubuntu is not called "Ubuntu Linux"? The trademark has
> been removed from the name.
>
No, that has nothing to do with it. Our packages use "linux" in the
name. If Linus wanted (or the Linux Foundation, I think) then they could
ask us to change them, or stop using
Remco wrote:
> Trademark is, like copyright and patents, an "intellectual property",
> designed to restrict other people. It's not in the spirit of free
> software to be bound by any of these.
Remco, the GPL specifically constrains what you can do with code, using
copyright law. It's easy to confus
To label trademarks in the same bucket as copyright is a strawman
argument that's a very slippery slope.
Instead of restricting users, trademarks protect users from abuse by
providing a consistent user experience associated with a brand. It has
been lucky that the free software projects without tr
This bug was fixed in the package ubufox - 0.6~b1-0ubuntu3
---
ubufox (0.6~b1-0ubuntu3) intrepid; urgency=low
(cherry-pick rev 112 from lp:ubufox)
* fix LP: #269656 - AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU
FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP; we backout the infamous firstrun feature
This bug was fixed in the package firefox-3.0 - 3.0.2+build6+nobinonly-
0ubuntu1
---
firefox-3.0 (3.0.2+build6+nobinonly-0ubuntu1) intrepid; urgency=low
Security/Stability update (v3.0.2 build6)
- see USN-645-1
[ Fabien Tassin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ]
* Add a -g/--debug switch
Hi Mark, all,
I had time to read over the services wording, and I can't find serious
fault with it, but IANAL. I'm sure you are asking one, so here's my only
suggested change:
Firefox also *offers optional* web site information services, such as
blah blah
Instead of:
Firefox also *uses* web
> No, you don't understand trademarks. Trademarks are designed to watch
> out for your property, where 'you' can be whatever you want; community,
> open source software, a person...
Yes, I do understand trademarks. The same thing is said for copyright,
patents, and even technical restriction manag
On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 14:46:03 -
Remco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Trademark is, like copyright and patents, an "intellectual property",
> designed to restrict other people.
No, you don't understand trademarks. Trademarks are designed to watch
out for your property, where 'you' can be whatever
Trademark is, like copyright and patents, an "intellectual property",
designed to restrict other people. It's not in the spirit of free
software to be bound by any of these. Patent problems are hard to avoid
in general, which is why they should be abolished. Copyright has been
tamed by free softwar
I am pleased to say that we reached a state where I feel comfortable to
call this bug "fix committed".
Thanks to all for contributing, testing and providing feedback.
The screenshots i just posted reflect the current state as of rev 337 on
the firefox-3.0.head branch, which is most likely what wi
** Attachment added: "Screenshot: release-candidate about:rights (expanded)
(rev3)"
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/1786/about_rights_expanded.png
--
AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656
You received this bug notificatio
** Attachment added: "Screenshot: release-candidate about:rights (default)
(rev3)"
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/1784/about_rights.png
--
AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656
You received this bug notification because
** Attachment added: "Screenshot: release-candidate firstrun (rev3)"
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/17877769/firstrun.png
--
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
Just to throw in my metaphorical towel.
Chip Bennet, who I have found myself agreeing with from the beginning
and who has a much better way with words than me, has apparently
actually gone and read the agreement that is the final piece of this
puzzle.
In comment 508:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ub
The way this discussion has developed and the obvious participation of
major figures in the OS community is another solid reason for me to
appreciate open source software.
Whilst not directly related to the EULA, if the version of Firefox to be
included in Ubuntu in the future will incorporate som
Prateek Karandikar wrote:
>> All of the software in question can be freely modified and distributed.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>
> If this was so, you could have removed the EULA yourself to begin with,
> and much of this discussion would not have occurred. Remco put it well:
> "The mere fact that Mozill
pj wrote:
> Since Mark is asking for input on the service, I will tell you that the first
> thing I do is
> turn off antiphishing services, along with every other thing that tends to
> track my
> surfing. I turn off Javascript and cookies too, for example, so I'm
> definitely not the
> average
> All of the software in question can be freely modified and distributed.
>
>Mark
If this was so, you could have removed the EULA yourself to begin with,
and much of this discussion would not have occurred. Remco put it well:
"The mere fact that Mozilla has any say in this makes Firefox non-free.
To understand a bit more about the anti phishing in firefox you should read
about the documentation,
http://code.google.com/p/google-safe-browsing/wiki/Protocolv2Spec , or other
pages about the code.
Now know that the service is not perfect, let me explain, what i mean
for the part i understand
unsubscribe
--
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://l
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 19:20:18 -
Remco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This hasn't been true for a long time. The version of Firefox that is
> shipped can not be modified freely. If we don't get permission from
> Mozilla to ship a revised binary, we can't. This has to do with the
> artwork and name
Firefox cannot be distributed in a modified form.
The whole point of the branding from Mozzila's point of view was that
there should not be 100's of modified Firefox's floating about
If it can not be modified and distributed by *definition* it can not be
in main...
Otherwise you are saying we ca
> All of the software in question can be freely modified and distributed.
>
>Mark
This hasn't been true for a long time. The version of Firefox that is
shipped can not be modified freely. If we don't get permission from
Mozilla to ship a revised binary, we can't. This has to do with the
artwork a
Sorry PJ, but I can't agree with you. What's the point of having super-duper
antiphishing features in web browsers if they were turned off by default? Why
users should be bothered to turn them on? Those who don't want such
antiphishing services are a minority. So they can have a little more hass
Since Mark is asking for input on the service, I will tell you that the first
thing I do is
turn off antiphishing services, along with every other thing that tends to
track my
surfing. I turn off Javascript and cookies too, for example, so I'm definitely
not the
average person in my habits. I
On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Alexander Sack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ** Attachment added: "Screenshot: proposed about:rights (expanded) (rev2)"
> http://launchpadlibrarian.net/17836931/about_rights_expanded.png
A nit - do we really need ALL CAPS? Even Mr. Shuttleworth doesn't
seem to
Prateek Karandikar wrote:
> "There is no doubt in my mind that the right thing to do is leave the
> anti-phishing service on, and leave Firefox in main."
>
> Do you believe that it is acceptable to have application software in
> main that you are not free to modify and distribute? Doesn't this
> co
** Attachment added: "Screenshot: proposed about:rights (expanded) (rev2)"
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/17836931/about_rights_expanded.png
--
AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656
You received this bug notification because
** Attachment added: "Screenshot: proposed about:rights (default) (rev2)"
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/17836924/about_rights.png
--
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
** Attachment added: "Screenshot: proposed firstrun (rev2)"
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/17836902/firstrun2.png
--
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
A new intrepid build is available in my preview/testing archive:
- https://edge.launchpad.net/~asac/+archive
- firefox-3.0 - 3.0.2+build6+nobinonly-0ubuntu1~asac2
This upload addresses some technical details and comes with updated
wording for the notification displayed on firstrun as well as for
Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
"There is no doubt in my mind that the right thing to do is leave the
anti-phishing service on, and leave Firefox in main."
Do you believe that it is acceptable to have application software in
main that you are not free to modify and distribute? Doesn't this
contradict th
William Grant wrote:
> I question the wording of the notification bar at the top; the point it
> is trying to make is not that it's open, but that there are things which
> aren't. Software shouldn't present a button describing restrictions,
> with text next to it emphasising that it's open, not men
Chip Bennett wrote:
>> Maybe Canonical has an
>> agreement with Mozilla to get a part of the Google money to have these
>> services enabled, or maybe they just see it from a marketing point of
>> view and want the brand recognition that firefox carries, for example to
>> maintain their deal with De
Trademarks are similar to filenames in a filesystem, right? We can't
have two files with the same name in the same folder... But we could
have that file in another folder - it means that in another country we
could register "Firefox" if you would like. But, anyways, you are not
going to register an
"I question the wording of the notification bar at the top; the point it
is trying to make is not that it's open, but that there are things which
aren't."
Agreed. The point is not about the free/open-ness. Pidgin, OpenOffice,
and many other installed-by-default things are free, they don't need any
Gavin: thanks. this is now addressed in bzr rev329.
--
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 lis
Gavin: thanks. this is now address in bzr rev329.
--
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
Alexander: the nsIAboutModule you implemented in
http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~mozillateam/firefox/firefox-3.0.head/revision/327
doesn't return ALLOW_SCRIPTS from its getURIFlags, so the link on the
page it displays will be broken if the user has JavaScript disabled.
--
AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PR
asac, this looks much better! about:rights is perhaps a little bland,
but it's a bit more readable!
I question the wording of the notification bar at the top; the point it
is trying to make is not that it's open, but that there are things which
aren't. Software shouldn't present a button describin
Alexander worote:
" * Screenshot: proposed about:rights (default) (75.4 KiB, image/png)"
IMHO, it is disrespectful to Ubuntu users to present an "Agreement" as
"Agreed" by *default* ( as one can see in the mockup attached ).
Solutions:
i) don't call it "Agreement" ( suggestion: call it "Impor
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
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.
Maybe if you could configure from which provider you would like to get
the anti-phishin
On Saturday 20 September 2008 12:18:12 pm Dragonlord wrote:
> Anyway, this is
> not about bashing mr. Shuttleworth, honestly, but we need to view things
> from a realistic perspective.
Agreed; attacking Mark Shuttleworth over this issue is unnecessary and
unproductive.
> Maybe Canonical has an
>
On Saturday 20 September 2008 10:57:20 am JohnFlux wrote:
> > Dont enable the anti-phishing by default, but educate about how it can
>
> be turned on.
>
> As others pointed out, the people who most need anti-phishing are the
> ones who are least likely to change the settings :-)
I respect that pos
I hate to say this here, but Mark Shuttleworth is a businessman, a
company leader, not exactly what I would call a free software leader.
And that's fine! But we need to know what we're talking about. Even
launchpad is not free software (yet), one wouldn't expect from a "free
software leader" to rel
You can use the command firefox -profilemanager to add a new profile.
This will let you test the new first-run EULA if you missed it (or want
to experience it again). This new version of the EULA appeared for me
even though I had already viewed the previous version, so if you're
paying attention th
Am 20.09.2008 um 16:08 schrieb Alexander Sack:
> ** Attachment added: "Screenshot: proposed firstrun"
>http://launchpadlibrarian.net/17779249/firstrun1.png
Looks reasonable, even if I still think Mozilla's insistence makes
them look a bit silly.
Do you have a hint on how to reset Firefox
On Sat, 2008-09-20 at 16:31 +, ua wrote:
> Tim Post wrote:
> >
> > So I dived into Google, which is ...u miss this kind of stuff? :)
> >
> > Friendly,
> > --Tim
> >
>
> I think you should stop. What you say isn't going to help free software.
> I respect Mark and I can't respect you. you see
> Dont enable the anti-phishing by default, but educate about how it can
be turned on.
As others pointed out, the people who most need anti-phishing are the
ones who are least likely to change the settings :-)
--
AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
https://bugs.la
That seems to be a less invasive solution to me, making the default
installation more usable, so thanks to those involved for the
improvement. This still seems to be non-free though, so I still think
firefox-3.0 or the branding package should be moved to restricted.
The unbranded/abrowser/icewease
On Sat, 2008-09-20 at 13:15 +, aschuring wrote:
> In light of the recent comments, I'm starting to see the additional
> problems with having firefox as-is in main, especially with the web
> services enabled by default. Indeed, like Chip pointed out, Firefox with
> web services cannot be freely
Nice workflow, unobtrusive, reassuring. Good stuff Alexander.
--
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 m
I think "free and open-source software" would make more sense, rather than
just "open 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 subsc
** Attachment added: "Screenshot: proposed about:rights (expanded)"
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/17779313/about_rights_expanded.png
--
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
** Attachment added: "Screenshot: proposed about:rights (default)"
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/17779270/about_rights.png
--
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
** Attachment added: "Screenshot: proposed firstrun"
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/17779249/firstrun1.png
--
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, w
Hi,
Finally some test builds are available for intrepid in my test archive:
https://edge.launchpad.net/~asac/+archive
The package versions required are:
firefox-3.0 - 3.0.2+build6+nobinonly-0ubuntu1~asac1
xulrunner-1.9 - 1.9.0.2+build6+nobinonly-0ubuntu1~asac2
ubufox - 0.6~b1-0ubuntu3~as
In light of the recent comments, I'm starting to see the additional
problems with having firefox as-is in main, especially with the web
services enabled by default. Indeed, like Chip pointed out, Firefox with
web services cannot be freely used without taking note of its use
restrictions. I do accep
Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Let's imagine we're *not* talking about Google and Mozilla. I definitely
won't trust an Open Source software that is offered to me with a
pre-accepted EULA.
The reason is simple: it's only about trust. W'e ve seen, more than once,
companies that suddenl
kafpauzo
>The GPL does allow trademark restrictions. You'd need to find software that is
>published under a license that forbids trademark restrictions.
A licence can only declare rules (it can't forbid or restrict anything,
except the authors of the licence). A licence can restrict only the
aut
+1 to Dragonlord's comment #466
I have yet to be convinced that it is "the right thing to do" to include
Firefox in *main* with these services enabled as default. In this state,
FF is *not* "Free" software; you are required to accept a usage policy
irrespective of how conspicuous or not that agree
kafpauzo said:
"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 t
unsubscribe
--
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://l
@ kafpauzo
"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."
Actually I do other things for maximum stealth (and lack there of).
I do have an issue where, what appears as a hypocritical, incl
On Friday 19 September 2008 8:39:41 pm kafpauzo wrote:
> @ Chip Bennet:
> 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
> neces
@ 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 discussi
firefox code is free but its services require that you accept the eula this
is the only main package which do that and i think this is intolerable why
we accept such unique behavior ?
--
AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656
You
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 counte
yes but firefox is dependent on Google service wich is non-free trade secret
software i suggest to remove firefox from the main repo and replace it by
abrowser by default or the debian unbranded release of FF.
--
AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
https://bugs.lau
On Friday 19 September 2008 2:46:38 pm kafpauzo wrote:
> 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 jus
@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
Some final after thoughts...
I wonder if the topic is closed succesfully? The eula has changed into an
webpage with the notice
and is being worked on is what i know sofar, but still gives Ubuntu an moral
issue, as to where firefox should go now, in nonfree repositories?
Would it have been bett
On Fri, 2008-09-19 at 06:31 +, Ante Karamatić wrote:
> And, as any other license, it's about software, not a service. You can
> have GPL software on your computer, but your service, based on it, can
> be non-free. Output of AGPL-ed software (aka service) can be non-free -
> it's simple, AGPL do
Ante Karamatić wrote:
> And, as any other license, it's about software, not a service. You can
> have GPL software on your computer, but your service, based on it, can
> be non-free. Output of AGPL-ed software (aka service) can be non-free
> - it's simple, AGPL doesn't cover services.
The AGPL doe
** Changed in: ubufox
Status: In Progress => Fix Committed
--
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-bu
ubufox part of this bug is now "fix committed" in bzr. Remember that
firefox-3.0 task is _still_ "in progress".
If you want to track the progress, the "Related Branches" are linked
below the bug summary.
** Changed in: ubufox (Ubuntu Intrepid)
Status: In Progress => Fix Committed
--
AN I
The following tasks are in progress to fix this bug in ubuntu:
1. firefox-3.0 - implement the "Know Your Rights..." approach which was
presented here: http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2008/09/17/mock-ups-
available-for-notices-previously-was-eula/
2. ubufox - back-out the firstrun EULA
Thanks,
** Also affects: ubufox (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
--
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.
--
>
> I don't see any difference between asking my ISP non-free router's
> operating system where should my data go and asking
> non-free Google/Mozilla if some website is 'phishing'.
The difference is that my ISP isn't pretending to be free. It can use free
software as much as it wants to, but its
1 - 100 of 463 matches
Mail list logo
