I think we should compare and contrast Firefox and Iceweasel or IceCat EULA's and then talk about posibility to include or exclude firefox from default ubuntu install. As of now, i see only very few people in this discussion which does understand all differences between using branded and unbranded firefox version. It does not matter id it shows EULA or not in the separate window or in new browser tab or how fast you can accept it and close it, it matters how EULA affects you and what freedoms does it take from you.
And one more thing. EULA should be carefuly examined to avoid things like this: One person in ubuntuforums has noticed that you are not allowed to install firefox if you disagree with EULA, but since it is installed by default, that means that by installing ubuntu you agree to firefox's EULA and if you don't want to, you can't install ubuntu. http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=919444&page=13 (post #122) -- 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
