- Something is obviously fishy in all this. On one hand, Mark Shuttleworth claims:
Mozilla Corp asked that (the EULA) be added in order for (Ubuntu) to continue to call the browser Firefox.
On the other hand, Mozilla claims all over the place that the EULA text was a mistake. Couldn’t they think more about what they’re demanding from distributors before asking them stupid things ?
- It’s not the first time Mozilla approaches a distro to ask them to comply to new demands, and create a controversy, a burden or a real PITA. What is going to come next ?
- From my bug reporter point of view, the way Mozilla handled it can be seen like this: when the Debian nutcases complain about the EULA being shown in “Open Source builds”, it’s not a problem, and the EULA is actually necessary. When bad press comes about the same EULA because the big player that Ubuntu is starts rebelling, it becomes an important mistake. I just hope this feeling is wrong.
Update: there is a nice article on the EULA issue on Groklaw.