I agree that non free restrictions (wherever the EULA is presented, in a popup or the first tab) are against the freedoms that Ubuntu stands for. If Mozilla insists on them then Firefox must be moved to restricted and a free browser (iceweasel or abrowser) should be the default. It is unacceptable to have a livecd or default install that is left without a browser if someone decides not to agree to an EULA.
I agree it is a bit disappointing that Mark and Canonical didn't keep us better informed and let us make a choice as to whether to accept these demands from Mozilla. It should have been clear the types of problems this change would cause and why. However Mark and others at Canonical have done so much to promote freedom that I give them a long leash for one-off mistakes. They've earned our respect. But as others have said this is a character defining moment for Ubuntu. Either we stand for software freedom or we don't. This EULA with it's additional restrictions do represent a slippery slope. If we cave to Mozilla's encroachment on freedom, one day we'll look back on this as the chance we had to take a stand for software freedom and didn't. -- 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
