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 > 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 Dell who might prefer something with Firefox > since they have the choice between so many distros. Personally, I choose to assume that Mark Shuttleworth/Canonical have no ulterior motives with respect to the anti-phishing/malware services enabled by default in Ubuntu, and that Mark Shuttleworth's view represents a philosophical difference of opinion with respect to whether or not shipping Firefox with those services enabled by default results in Firefox no longer conforming to the requirements for free software. > Canonical is a > company and that's what they do, go with the marketing rules, and that's > understandable. If the community that supports, spreads Ubuntu and for > the largest part makes it what it is likes that and lets it happen is > another thing. For me, it's very fortunate and desirable for the free > software community to have Canonical work with the laws of marketing to > spread free software, as long as it doesn't compromise the principles of > free software for this cause - because, you know, it becomes pointless > since you can't support free software by contaminating it with non-free > services that require a user agreement, at least on a default > installation. I think that if Mr. Shuttleworth came to share our viewpoint on this issue, that Canonical would decide not to ship Firefox with the services enabled by default in Ubuntu. > It has become clear by now that the essence of this issue > has not been fixed, since we're still talking about a user agreement > required to use the software on its default configuration, it's now only > hidden and considered that the user has agreed without stating it, only > by not disabling the services. And that issue is the only reason I'm still commenting in this bug report. I am really hoping to get an official answer from Shuttleworth/Canonical on this issue. As I have already said, I don't care about the usefulness/benefits of the anti-phishing/malware services until the question of whether or not having them enabled by default renders Firefox as non-free. Thus far, the most I have seen is that "services are still an unknown entity in the free-software world" and "the services are too beneficial to disable." If that is the extent of Canonical's introspection on this issue, I do not believe it to be anywhere near sufficient. -- 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
