Voice of pragmatism: Ubuntu allegedly uses the Firefox brand to gain users. What feedback has been gained? In other words, how many users per year (ballparked, of course) does Ubuntu expect to lose by dropping the "Firefox" name and logo? Let's call this X.
As mentioned above, there is a huge cost in adding an EULA to free software, as it ruins users' perceptions of free software. (I, for instance, am horribly disillusioned and will be badmouthing Firefox for the foreseeable future.) Can anyone quantify that cost (in lost current and prospective users, say, or fractions of users' trust)? Let's call this Y. If X is greater than Y, there is a case for keeping the EULA. If X is less than Y, we should rebrand Firefox (which, I assume, is a zero-cost operation). If X is equal to Y (or close), then I, for one, advocate rebranding Firefox simply to maintain Ubuntu's ideals. If we do not know X or Y and cannot guess at them, then why not hold with Ubuntu's ideals: the one concrete value we have? Rephrased for emphasis: why add an EULA, which produces a proven negative effect (as evidenced by the flurry of comments above), instead of rebranding, which has (so far) no proven negative effect? Ubuntu has greatly disappointed me in this example of pragmatism over policy, especially because the Ubuntu community has not even been offered evidence of any pragmatism whatsoever. Meaning no offense, Mark, I ask for the sake of argument: what evidence can you provide that including an EULA is good for Ubuntu? -- 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
