my 2 cents 1) If Mozilla's team doesn't want to be reasonable and discuss this with the ubuntu community, ubuntu should behave in the same way. treating Firefox as every other open source project included in the distro. Firefox wants an EULA we don't want? We can use Iceweazel/Icedove as debian does... and put the firefox package in the restricted repository. End of the story.
2) Of course I think having the official firefox in ubuntu is the best solution, we're similar projects and we have to be able to discuss and find solultions together in order to for excellence together. But we don't want an EULA to bother end users, and we don't want Firefox to be perceived as a "restricted" package in ubuntu. If we're speaking about corporate image, i think not being recognized as a "fully free" open source project from other leading open source projects could only affect firefox's image, not ubuntu's. 3) If ubuntu's community will adopt another browser instead of firefox, I strongly disagree using something different from IceWeazel (why we have to ruin firefox brand twice? abrowser is simply not a name). I would rather see an epiphany-based distro! -- 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
