Really, the answer is simple. If firefox cannot be modified to remove the EULA and then distributed legally by Ubuntu, it is simply not free software. Thus it should be in restricted or multiverse, and subject to the same reduced support. In particular, the default installation should not install it.
The fact that the restrictions come from trademark and not copyright law is irrelevant - the result is that modifications are not legal without first removing the non-free (ie, trademarked) content. It is thus an equivalent situation to having a mix of GPL'd code and proprietary code mixed together, made legal in that exact (unmodified) form by the blessing of the GPL code's copyright holder. While this may be legal to redistribute according to some separate license, this doesn't make it even remotely free 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
