Mozzila Demands EULA…Ouch! BAD or not?
Maybe I just get a “Knee-jerk response” every time I hear the word EULA. Mozilla is demanding that FF users view an EULA the first time they start up Firefox in Ubuntu.
Should I be jumpy about this? Maybe not. I thought it was something interesting to bring up though, since it’s something everyone(browser/web geeks and or humans) should be informed on.
Mark Shuttleworth says:
I would not consider an EULA as a best practice. It’s unfortunate that Mozilla feels this is absolutely necessary, but they do, and none of us are in a position to be experts about the legal constraints which Mozilla feels apply to them.
You can read the full article Here: Mozilla Demanding FireFox Display EULA In Ubuntu@SlashDot
I love Firefox(as I have mentioned quit a few a times before) and I don’t want to see the best browser that ever was go down the drain. Theres always other browsers but life just wouldn’t be the same without FF and I’m sure that LOTS of fellow FF users feel the same way.
Here are some awesome SlashDot comments:
It’s just making Ubuntu more familiar to ex-Windows users.
Blindly clicking through meaningless and offensive EULAs is standard practice in the Windows world.
TheLink
I wonder why they’re being so difficult. Firefox already isn’t called like that in my OS for over a year anymore, it’s “Gran Paradisio”, and firefox 2 was something else that I already forgot (and don’t care what it was again either). What bothers me more is that the logo is an empty globe instead of the better looking one with the fox. But so again, I wonder why they’re doing that, while this isn’t a problem for most other software like gimp, pidgin, inkscape, audacious, openoffice.org, KDE, filezilla, and so on. I mean, what does mozilla do so different that they have this trademark problem and the others don’t?
Lord Lode
View more of the comments@SlashDot
However, F. Andy Seidl also had something a reasonable to say:
There are many reasons why someone providing a service might want to have a EULA—not all of which are evil or conspiratorial.
Ever sign an agreement before renting a car, or a bike, or cross-country skis? If someone offering a service—of any kind—wants to clarify the terms under which they are comfortable offering that service, why is that unreasonable?
I’m hoping a few people have something to say about this. Feel free to express your opinion 
-Clinton
September 15, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Well this one bad.
“Making something easier to use doesn’t mean dumbing it down.”
September 15, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Come on folks, get realistic. There are MANY reasons why anyone providing any service might want to have a EULA–not all of which are evil or conspiratorial.
Ever sign a waiver that you’re not going to sue someone before doing something like renting a car, or a bike, or cross-country skis? If someone offering a service–of any kind–wants to clarify the terms under which they are comfortable offering that service, why is that unreasonable?
Now, you might reasonably take issue with specific terms in a EULA, (like Chrome’s EULA claiming ownership of content posted via the browser, which is ridiculous) but taking issue with the *existence* of a EULA is naive.
As to someone being “bothered more” by a trademark change… come on, there are more important things in life to worry about. (I, for one, always though that fox wrapped around a globe was amateurish, but who really cares.)