[Bug 1099828] Re: Tab bar is not displayed when there is only one page open in a window
I'll add to the chorus. Confirmed on: Version 23.0.1271.97 Ubuntu 12.10 (23.0.1271.97-0ubuntu0.12.10.1) I just updated today from Kubuntu Precise to Kubuntu Quantal. This bug did NOT appear in the version of Chromium in Precise: chromium-browser (23.0.1271.97-0ubuntu0.12.04.1) So, this is apparently an Ubuntu Quantal-specific issue - and an annoying one, at that. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1099828 Title: Tab bar is not displayed when there is only one page open in a window To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/chromium-browser/+bug/1099828/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 576883] Re: kmail fetches mails repeatedly (POP3)
Trying to do due diligence. Linking an upstream bug report that appears to be related. ** Bug watch added: KDE Bug Tracking System #230072 http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=230072 ** Also affects: kdepim via http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=230072 Importance: Unknown Status: Unknown -- kmail fetches mails repeatedly (POP3) https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/576883 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Kubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to kdepim in ubuntu. -- kubuntu-bugs mailing list kubuntu-b...@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kubuntu-bugs
[Bug 576883] Re: kmail fetches mails repeatedly (POP3)
I can confirm that I did *not* have this problem with Karmic, but did so, upon upgrade to Lucid. How is this an upstream bug that is somehow invalid for Kubuntu? If it were upstream, wouldn't it have showed up before, with everyone using the KDE SC PPA? I believe this bug should be re-opened as valid. -- kmail fetches mails repeatedly (POP3) https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/576883 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Kubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to kdepim in ubuntu. -- kubuntu-bugs mailing list kubuntu-b...@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kubuntu-bugs
[Bug 298578] [NEW] Amarok not automatically downloading podcasts
Public bug reported: Binary package hint: amarok Using Amarok 1.4.9.1, KDE 3.5.10, Kubuntu Hardy: Amarok -> Playlists -> Podcasts Several podcast subscriptions have the option (under "Configure" in the context menu) "Download when available" selected (as opposed to "Stream or Download on request"). Some of these podcasts fail to download when the feed is updated with a new podcast. Some functioned as configured for a while, and then stopped downloading; some never functioned as configured at all. Some have always functioned, and continue to function, as configured. I cannot identify any particular reason why a podcast would fail to download, though the behavior may correlate with podcasts with exceptionally large feeds (many episodes). ** Affects: amarok (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New -- Amarok not automatically downloading podcasts https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/298578 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
Re: [Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TOYOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ONSTARTUP
On Monday 22 September 2008 4:12:23 am Mark Shuttleworth wrote: > The question about what sorts of terms of service would be incompatible > with the spirit of free software is a very interesting one, and I know > there's lots of good debate and discussion going on within our community > and within Canonical. Theres nothing like a consensus on the matter > (don't confuse the AGPL for terms of service for services). > > At this stage, my own compass suggests that we are OK if: > > - the terms appear to be basically reasonable > - the terms don't prevent you from working with anyone else > - the terms don't prevent you from studying the service itself > > For "basically reasonable" I ask myself "will most *aware* people want > this on"? By "aware" I mean people who are sensitive to issues of > licensing and data protection and their rights. Most people are > oblivious to those things, but the group of people cc'd on this bug are > probably "aware". And I'm pretty sure that the substantial majority of > folks cc'd on the bug have left the anti-phishing service active. I > certainly have. I would think it nuts to surf the web without it. > > The middle one is, I think, important because we don't want to see > lock-in. One could go further and look for data portability and > protection, but I don't yet see any consensus about that. > > And the last one is important people it's analogous to one of the > fundamental benefits of the four freedoms, the ability to learn from the > software one is using. I think it likely someone tries to wedge a > service in somewhere that says "you can't study this" (the way BitKeeper > did) and I think that would be non-free. > > I'm sure, as the discussion evolves, we'll get a better framework, and > I'm not speaking for the whole CC here, just myself. There are serious > members of the community who are extremely aware of these issues who > have been part of the process in driving to a resolution, and as far as > I'm aware we are all comfortable with this latest round of proposals. > There is still some detailed due-diligence under way on the specific > language used and compatibility with each of the licenses in play, and > if problems turn up there, we'll work with Mozilla to get them > addressed. Our interest here is in getting to a positive outcome, which > for me means helping Mozilla as well as helping our users. Actually, based on the most recent wording of the "terms" as posted by Alexander, my specific concerns have essentially been allayed. In reading those terms, I don't see anything that constitutes an "agreement" with Mozilla in order to use the services. Also, the *requirement* to disable (i.e. "must disable") the services if the user does not agree with the terms has been replaced with non-compulsory language (i.e. "may disable"). In this light, I see the terms of use of the services now in a state that is functionally and essentially equivalent to the terms for use of Firefox itself. Use of the services imposes no further, improper, or otherwise undue restrictions on the user. > 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. I don't believe we > are abusing the trust our users place in us, and in fact, most of the > other courses of actions would feel like abandoning that trust in favour > of making an unnecessary statement. And due to the most recent changes, I must say that I agree. I see no reason for the services not to be enabled by default - with respect to matters of software freedom. (I still contend that the matter of the *usefulness* of those services is not germane to the issues at hand and under discussion in this bug report.) -- 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
Re: [Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
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
Re: [Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
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
Re: [Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
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 position; however, the question of usefulness of the service is secondary to the question of whether having them enabled by default results in Firefox not conforming to the requirements of "free software". If the issue of usefulness is deemed to be the primary issue, then Canonical will need to change the operating principles for Ubuntu, as well as the requirements for supported software in the Main repository. After all, I can present a rather strong argument for the usefulness of MP3 codecs, proprietary video card drivers, etc. - and yet the usefulness of none of those trumps the principles of free software Ubuntu promises nor the requirements for supported software in the Main repository. -- 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
Re: [Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
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 > necessary reply must be "the GPL doesn't apply". We do need a term, but > "free" is too confusing. Perhaps it is too early to get caught up in terminology. I think that's part of the problem: the environment is so new that we don't even know the proper terminology. That said, I think there's a big difference between "if you don't agree to the use terms, just don't use" (passive end-user action) and "if you don't agree to the use terms, disable" (active end-user action) - especially considering that, in this example (Firefox anti-phishing services), most end-users will not know that their assent is required to use the services. (To that end, I understand why Mozilla wanted to expose the end user to the use terms.) The real problem arises when something that squarely falls into our understanding of "free software" (Firefox web browser) gets tangled up with something that still does not (anti-phishing services). Free software by definition imposes no use restrictions on end users. Firefox sans anti-phishing services imposes no use restrictions on end users. Firefox *with* anti-phishing services *does* impose use restrictions on end users. Therein lies the problem. And whether the services are called free/non-free, or something else entirely, the end result is that Firefox itself is in a state that really can't be considered to be fully consistent with the definition of free software (at least, as far as I can thus reason). > "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. I'm not sure I agree with that assertion. *Many* defaults are matters of personal preference. Perhaps it is true to say that most people do not change configuration defaults for a given application, whether due to ignorance or apathy; however, I'm not sure that most people would see those configuration defaults as strongly recommended, "best practice", etc. > 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. That is exactly why Ubuntu could pop up a notice of its own (similar to the notice that comes up when installing/enabling MP3 codecs) on a user's first run of Firefox, explaining that the anti-phishing services are disabled by default, why they are disabled, the benefits the services provide to the user, and how to enable them (perhaps even offering to do so with a simple button-click). > 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. This stance appears to be the one shared by our SABDFL. I cannot disagree - unless some means exists to educate those users (as in the above example). Regardless, the bottom line really is this: with the anti-phishing services enabled, and therefore the restrictions with which those services encumber the end user, can Firefox still be considered to meet the definition of free software? If that answer is yes, then there is no issue. If, however, the answer is no, then *regardless* of how beneficial those services are to end users, Firefox cannot and should not be allowed to stay in the Main repository. If the answer is no, then the disposition of Firefox really becomes one of principle: will Canonical be willing either to violate or to modify its requirements for software in the Main repository for the sake of Firefox (and its anti-phishing services)? If the answer is no, then for many in the Ubuntu community, the disposition of Firefox will be indicative of Canonical's willingness to demonstrate the courage of their convictions with respect to free software. (And if anyone should think that statement to be sensational, I would refer you to the degree of emotion inherent in many of the preceding comments.) -- 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
Re: [Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
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 just because it connects to servers that run > non-free software. Hopefully I'm not being misconstrued as a purist. I do not believe that Firefox becomes non-free just because it connects to servers that run non-free software. 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. (The EULA for those services still resides within Firefox, albeit presented in a far superior manner than that which begat this bug report.) > My opinion is that such a purist view is extreme and impractical. I > don't want my free software to be restricted to contacting only servers > that run free software. I think this would be a very severe restriction. Again, I've not seen anyone advocate restricting anyone from using those services; rather, only that those services be disabled by default in Ubuntu's Firefox package. Enabling those services is - at most - as simple as checking a configuration check box. > I'm delighted that I'm invited and welcome to install huge lots of free- > as-in-freedom software on my system, but I don't want to insist that > every server that I contact do the same, nor do I feel that Firefox > becomes any less free because of restrictions on Google's server > software. I don't think anyone in this discussion has suggested what you seem to believe has been suggested. In the end, I'm just trying to get the conversation started with respect to what "freedom" means in the nascent software-as-a-service world in which we find ourselves. Firefox is just the first instance, but what happens here will set a precedent. I think it is wise to think through what precedent Ubuntu wants to set. -- 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
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
"I think you are pushing this too far. Each TCP package you generate uses services of lots of network hardware (and software!) which isn't free. That's why, among lots of other reasons, we have free software - so we can be sure our data is safe and we wouldn't give valuable information to someone who shouldn't have it. It's impossible to have a free service. I mean, even sourceforge (mother ship of open source software) isn't free. It's even 'less free' than Mozilla's services." Except that I'm not taking things that far. TCP, IP, FTP, SSL - these are all open standards. These are not "services" but rather communication protocols. None of those services require that you either assent to their terms, or else disable them. There are no "end user terms of use" for these protocols (AFAIK). By the way, it is not impossible to have a free service. Remember: a "service" is simply a software application that is run from a remote server, rather than from a local machine. An example of a free service? WordPress. WordPress is an open-source service. I am free to modify it as I wish. (In fact, I do - albeit modestly.) Another example? DNS. Go get TreeWalk, and roll your own DNS server. Ultimately, the question is: how does all of this impact the discussion of the anti-phishing service enabled by default in Firefox? -- 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
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
"I would have to respectfully disagree with Dragonlord; i believe that there is a large continuum of the freedom of software, akin to many things. Mozilla is a lot freer than many other web browsers out there, and they deserve props for that." Probably, most (at least those who can see the issue rationally) would not disagree. I think Mozilla's response to this situation confirms that they are sensitive to the needs/ethos of the free-software community - even if some of their actions along the way might be construed as mis- steps. "However, forcing what amounts to a EULA on the end users is simply not a good idea, as the vast majority of them have no intention of changing a single byte of code of Firefox and distributing it. Therefore, as posted by Dave Morley, I think a simple message bar would suffice, as it gives Mozilla a legal leg to stand on without annoying end users." For me at least, the issue has moved beyond the blanket EULA in Firefox. It seems that the entire matter derives from the non-free services (e.g. anti-phishing) built into Firefox. (The trademark issue appears to be, at best, orthogonal, in that the impression existed that if Ubuntu repackaged Firefox with the EULA disabled, Mozilla would revoke Firefox branding rights - I don't know if that impression coincided with reality.) It appears that Mozilla's intent with the EULA revolved around those non-free services - especially given that any explicit end-user assent (and at this point, it is actually implicit assent) is clearly limited to use of those services. Thus, the issue for Ubuntu now is: what does it mean to have non-free services bundled by default in a free software application? Asked another way, how do we compare/contrast non-free services bundled in Firefox with using Firefox to access non-free Yahoo services (mail, etc.), with using a Gnome Deskbar Applet backend to non-free Google services, or with installing non-free MP3 codecs for *insert music player*? What is acceptable with respect to the free-software requirements for packages in the Main repository? My personal inclination at this point is to err on the conservative side - to package Firefox in Ubuntu with the non-free services disabled, and to notify the user regarding what the services are, why they are disabled by default, what it means to enable them, and how to do so. After all, the Ubuntu community may decide down the road that the non- free services do not encumber Firefox itself, and thus do not render Firefox as non-free - in which case the services can e re-enabled by default. If, however, the community determines that having non-free services enabled by default in Firefox *does* render Firefox as non-free, then having enabled those services by default would have set a potentially bad precedent. -- 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
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
"Have you tried the Gnome "deskbar applet". I recommend it. You can search Yahoo and Google directly from the panel, without ever touch a web browser." I use Kubuntu, thus KDE, so, no, I've not tried the Gnome deskbar applet. That said, the use of Yahoo and/or Google search services do not require an end-user license agreement. "So, you never "use the browser to access those services and explicitly accept the terms of their use through account creation/login/use"." Those services do not require explicit acceptance of terms of use; terms of use exist, but they are implicit. "You just use it. Actually, I'm simplifying, because I think Google does require you to get an account, and that implies assent. But Yahoo doesn't. And most services will not, either." But those services aren't encumbered, and don't require assent. The Firefox anti-phishing services explicitly state that if the user does not agree to the terms of use, that the services should be disabled. Perhaps the Gnome Deskbar Applet is a good analogy; however, I'm not convinced. The primary differences I see are: 1) Gnome Deskbar Applet can be used to request information from/use of non-free services (Google et al); it does not install non-free service functionality locally (in the same way that using Firefox to navigate to Google is different from having anti-phishing services built into Firefox). The Firefox anti-phishing service is built-in to Firefox, and that functionality is installed and enabled by default; and, 2) Lack of agreement with the terms of use of Google's services via Gnome Deskbar Applet does not require uninstallation/disabling of anything in the applet itself; rather, it simply requires not making use of the Google (et al) backend. Lack of agreement with the terms of use of Firefox anti-phishing services requires disabling of the built-in services. "Hence the issue we face." I certainly acknowledge that this issue is touchy and rather unprecedented. I'm doing my best to be a voice of reason in my responses here, given the preponderance of non-edifying responses. I'm neither a Firefox fan boy nor a free-software purist. I'm just a Windows refuge trying to contribute to this community to which I have belonged for but a year. I can't say how much I appreciate that I - in reality, a "nobody" - can discuss, suggest, get responses on this issue from such high levels at both Canonical and Mozilla. -- 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
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
@Mark Shuttleworth "We could [disable the Website Services by default], yes, but I think that would be a significant loss. The services are not anti-virus (and hence of less value on Linux), they are anti-phishing. Unfortunately, the phishing virus affects the human brain and not the OS :-/ so I think launching Firefox on Linux without the anti-phishing service would be significantly less safe than IE on Windows with their anti-phishing service." Duly noted; the anti-phishing services are valuable/beneficial to Firefox users among the Ubuntu community. "We have been driving hard to get a good result here (and publishing the EULA-version was part of that driving process) that specifically sets a good precedent for integrated network services. Such services will be a feature of the future of software, and even where that software is FLOSS, we want to be able to take advantage of the available set of services." Agreed; the efforts thus far have produced valuable results with respect to precedent-setting. "Services, unlike software, will always come with terms of use. There are terms of use involved every time you use Google, Ebay, Yahoo, Wikipedia, Sourceforge, and like it or not your use of the service usually constitutes assent to those terms." Here is where our perspectives begin to differ. Services - AKA "Software Servies", AKA "Software as a Service (Saas)" - are nothing more than software applications that are installed on a remote server rather than the local machine. As software applications, they are either open- or closed-source. They are either free or non- free. Anti-phishing services bundled/built with Firefox are fundamentally different from the various SaaS applications to which you equated the anti-phishing services. Use of Google services (et al) requires the end user's explicit agreement to use the services, by means of using the browser to access those services and explicitly accepting the terms of their use (through account creation/login/use). Use of Mozilla's Firefox anti-phishing services, on the other hand, requires no explicit agreement to use the services; end-user agreement is implied by leaving the services enabled. This difference is critical. I do not imply my consent to use Google services (et al) simply by using the browser in the default configuration; on the other hand, if Mozilla's anti-phishing services are enabled by default, I *do* imply my consent to them simply by using the browser in the default configuration. Thus, as I understand it, in Firefox's default configuration, we now have end-users' implicit agreement to end-use restriction with respect to the non-free services bundled/built with Firefox. That means that Firefox, in its default configuration, is encumbered - and therefore, non-free - software. How does this circumstance *not* violate the requirements for packages in Main? Wouldn't a *far* better course of action be to package Firefox in Ubuntu with the non-free services disabled, and then present the user (either through Mozilla's notice screens, or else through an Ubuntu customization) with information regarding those services, what they are, why they are disabled by default, how their use is encumbered, and how to enable them should the user choose to do so? To be honest, my decision on whether or not to use those services will be how they impact the speed/performance of Firefox - not any philosophical issues with using non-free software. That said, Firefox with the services enabled by default becomes, by definition, encumbered /non-free software, in contradiction to the requirements for software included/supported in Main. "In addition, there is going to be a lot of discussion about what sorts of terms are acceptable to people who are aware to issues of intellectual property, data protection and the value of the digital commons. I.e. - you and me. We don't yet have a view on that, there is no "GPL for Services" but we expect one to emerge over the next few years, and this work by Mozilla is an important first step." I think the lack of a "GPL for Services" is mostly irrelevant, for the most part. With the exception of Mozilla's Firefox anti-phishing service, no other non-free service implies acceptance of end-user encumbrance in Main. I am trying to come up with proper analogies. I considered Magnatunes integration in Amarok/Rhythmbox, but even this analogy does not hold, since Magnatunes use within these applications requires explicit acceptance of the end-user agreement. "I should say that Mozilla has been very responsive once this issue was clearly on the public table, and they are clearly committed to the values that we hold dear. Organisations always have a diversity of thinking on a subject, and it's important to see what the leaders do once something is firmly on their agenda. In this case, Mozilla's leaders have been quick to stand for the things that most people here care about. As someone said, this EULA hasn't landed in a sta
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
@aschuring: "Considering how things are now with the services agreement, I don't think it will be necessary to ship with them turned off." Caveat: I am still relatively new (slightly over a year) to Ubuntu, Linux, and FOSS - so please forgive any ignorance and do not take any of my comments or questions to be anything more than sincere. I am quite happy with what Mozilla has done to revise both the content and presentation of information they believe critical to present to end users. However, I am still trying to grasp some things. As I understand Ubuntu's operating principles, Ubuntu is promised always to be free software. Only packages that meet the standard of "free software" can reside in Main and be fully, officially supported by Ubuntu. (Am I on track so far?) Now, we have Firefox, an erstwhile "free software" application, that has begun bundling non-free, proprietary components with their open-sourced, free software. Mozilla has done an admirable job now in differentiating between end users' rights of unencumbered use of Firefox and the use of the non-free components (services), that require an end-user agreement in order to use. So, now we have Firefox, by default built/bundled with non-free components (that require an end-user license agreement - by whatever name) that currently resides in Main for Intrepid alpha. That is, non- free software now resides in Main. I don't see how this situation is not problematic for Ubuntu. It would seem to me that this situation presents only two acceptable resolutions: 1) Mozilla allows Linux distributions to ship Firefox with the non-free services disabled by default, with users only required to accept an EULA for those services if they choose to enable them - and allowing them to do so without revoking their Firefox-branding rights, or 2) Ubuntu moves branded Firefox to Multiverse/Restricted, as non-free software cannot reside in Main. Any other resolution would be in violation of Canonical's operating principles with respect to Ubuntu, and would be considered to be an egregious betrayal of trust by much of the Ubuntu community. Again, with the changes Mozilla has already made, if Ubuntu can be allowed to disable the non-free services by default and still use the Firefox branding, then I think this issue will be completely, entirely resolved. And, again, I'm still learning here; I welcome constructive criticism if any of my above comments are off-base. -- 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
[Bug 199789] Re: Package IceWeasel not in ubuntu repositories
In light of recent developments, please re-open this bug report for consideration. -- Package IceWeasel not in ubuntu repositories https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/199789 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
