@ 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 discussion, I don't have much to say about it (yet).) 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 necessary reply must be "the GPL doesn't apply". We do need a term, but "free" is too confusing. "Enabling those services is - at most - as simple as checking a configuration check box." 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 thought through all the consequences with great care. As a consequence, the people who need this service will generally be afraid to touch the setting, and will only very rarely turn it on. Meanwhile those who don't need the service can turn it off very easily, for them it's quite trivial. @ jackb_guppy: "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 counted, I am allowed to not use it." 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. For example, very soon after installation Ubuntu will look for updates at some server near you, without asking you, and you can't choose which server. I find this convenient and acceptable. Apparently you don't. In my opinion the Firefox anti-phishing service is quite comparable to this. "Nor does it appear I have choice to use another provider without distoring the use of trademark." The GPL does allow trademark restrictions. You'd need to find software that is published under a license that forbids trademark restrictions. I don't think you can find that, because I don't think such a license could be made practically useful and viable. Certainly Ubuntu is not the solution: http://www.ubuntu.com/aboutus/trademarkpolicy However it does seem that Mozilla uses trademark policies that are far more restrictive than necessary and clash badly with established FOSS practices. See http://lockshot.wordpress.com/2008/09/15/firefox-eula-in- linux-distributions/#comment-46 (but that discussion is about the previous Firefox EULA, it's not about the latest solution). -- 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
