Looking at the Mozilla Firefox EULA, there are a lot of points I cannot completely understand as a user without any legal background. One point in particular strikes me as odd and possible very offensive.
> 6. EXPORT CONTROLS. This license is subject to all applicable export > restrictions. > You must comply with all export and import laws and restrictions and > regulations > of any United States or foreign agency or authority relating to the Product > and its use. Does this mean I am suddenly subject to US laws? I've never even been near the country. Regardless of the answer to this, a common user will be confused and intimidated by this legalese. As a user: * I cannot agree to a EULA when I do not understand its contents. * I should not be expected to read through pages of legal text. * I should never be asked to agree to (in most jurisdictions legally void) legal texts by my computer in a default install. A number of people above have stated that IceWeasel can be a fully compatible replacement for Firefox. I would, however, suggest looking into the user agent string issue, although I suspect that websites that depend of the "Firefox" bit in the string are extremely rare. +1 IceWeasel +1 Firefox should no longer reside in main I hope Mozilla is willing to reconsider their position. Good luck to the Ubuntu and Canonical people involved in resolving this issue. I am confident common sense will prevail in the end. -- 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
