FireFox Gains on IE > NY Times?

NY Times?

I agree. I love Firefox, but this ad campaign just makes me feel a little uncomfortable because I can't imagine anyone thinks it's going to make a huge, long-term difference, and so why? The answers I come up with are what leave me uncomfortable.
--
Windows, Mac, Linux, BSD - just use the right tool for the right job... end the OS Politics!

Real politics is much more interesting! www.georgewbush.com

Exactly. Apparently the Spread Fireweasel campaign itself has been successful, but I've questioned its evangelizing that the general public use beta software.

Now that it's going gold, of course, that objection changes (although the rush does call into question the readiness of the release).

Clearly they're on to something vis a vis marketing (something we've always complained is lacking in the open source arena) but something just doesn't feel right. Any word on whether that "Mozilla EULA" thing was just a nasty rumor or not?

-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function

Oh, come on! Is that FUD really necessary?

They just want to try non-internet advertizing for a change.

As for mentioning this "EULA" thing, thats absolutly rediculous. The code is completely free, not even encumbered by the GPL. NOBODY has the authority to apply any kind of mandatory license to Firefox.

Firefox is a great browser, but even if you don't like it, breaking the IE strangle-hold is still good for EVERYONE. Even if you like IE, you'll still get the benefits, as MS will need to improve it if they want to continue to compete.

Why does BBR have just about the most negative forumers in existance? Cheer up guys! Not everyone is out to get you!

Amen.

reply to Googolplex
Smart people are frequently critical or analytical of the world around them.

What's absolutely "rediculous" about the EULA rumor? Please tell me exactly if it's a false rumor -- that's why I asked! (Of course a documenting URL or two would be nice.) Yes, I'm too lazy to research it myself. Also, you're wrong -- the Mozilla foundation could easily require a EULA in their distributions; the natural recourse at that point would be a third-party fork of the code.

I certainly hope you're right, and that the Mozilla handlers have no agenda other than to promote good free software.
--
In a realm outside causality and function

"Smart people are frequently critical or analytical of the world around them."

Being analytical is good, being too critical of everything will only make you bitter and negative. :P

I was referring to a license on the code, not on any partiuclar preperation or distrobution. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I know that anyone can simply rebrand it and try to sell it if they really want to, even with a license. Pretty pointless though, considering that you can just download it for free as well.

Honestly, if they had an agenda, why would they completely emasculate any possiblity of control over their own project by making it free domain?

You people would accuse Gandhi of having an ulterior motive!

--- "We would then have to rely on OTHER, less trusted sources to download it, or a fork thereof."

Thats not the same as "No, you can't.", now is it? And why should any other source necessarily be less trusted?

--- "The whole point of Mozilla.org was to have a single branding of the main code branch. If Mozilla.org's reputation is compromised, it harms the progress of Mozilla and Fireweasel as a whole. We have every responsibility to question Mozilla.org's stewardship, exactly because we care about Mozilla."

I agree, this is true, however the Mozilla foundation is quite transparent. No need to speculate and accuse, as any such agenda would be nearly impossible for them to conceal.

reply to B

Ben G. (reporter): "We need a proper EULA for Firefox for binary distributions, actually we need two
variants, one for our own code, and one for code we distribute through UMO."

Ian H.: "What on _earth_ are you guys smoking. Redistribution is not permitted? Hello? May not modify the code? May not reverse engineer it? May not customise it? May not localise it? May not decompile the product? May not transfer rights to the product? May not assist third parties to customise the product??? Are you guys on crack? Seriously? We *WANT* people to copy the software. We *WANT* people to redistribute it. We *WANT* people to be able to customise it, localise it, decompile it, hack it, modify it.The only thing there is to protect here is the artwork and liability. Don't let it go to your heads and start restricting our users rights for no reason. It's just ridiculous." (emphasis mine)

Mick W.: "I hate the idea of a EULA screen. There is License.txt and that is enough. Ditto to Hixie's comment." "My god, I just read the attachment (License.txt) - wtf."

Elliot G.: "This is idiotic. If Firefox goes this route, expect someone to take Firefox and fork it like X.org forked XFree. The infighting would probably scare off casual adaptors, hurting adoption of both branches."

Ian H.: "(Note that while I think the license proposed here is insane, it _is_ legal within the framework of the MPL -- the MPL explicitly allows people to create restrictive licenses when distributing executable versions of the program, so long as they also provide the source code somewhere with no restrictions.)" (interesting - it seems as though the MPL is much less "free" than my first impression of it, if that's true)

A. L.: "This is a very bad idea. EULA's are synonymous with control and supression. Firefox needs no EULA. This is a horrible idea, and I am shocked as to why there isn't a large outcry to this like the outcries to the (suggested) removal of View Source and the temoporary remove of AltSS. Doesn't the MPL disclaim liability enough? If I see an EULA in Firefox 1.0, I won't install it. I'll just stick to the last non-EULA nightly."

Daniel R.: "Maybe we should just call it a "disclaimer of liability", since that's its actual purpose and "EULA" is such a hot-button word."

Juha S.: "Firefox is licensed under MPL, GPL and LGPL. ANY of those three licenses DOES NOT cover usage in any way, so End User License Agreement for them simply does not make sense, and EULA that is more restricted than them even less so, because it would actually be a lie."
"IMHO this should be either a WONTFIX or a simple disclaimer with possible link for those who are interested in redistributing or creating derivative works (which is the only thing those licenses cover)" (I'm with this guy - copyright law in the US does not regulate private use. A "EULA" in that context would only be used for a power-grab, to attempt to deprive a user of their rights under the law. Why an open-source project would wish to do that, I have no idea. Quite disturbing, IMHO.)

Benjamin S.:"Juha: Your statement is not correct. Mozilla code is licensed under the MPL, LGPL, *or* MPL. The MPL is specifically a source-level license and redistributors may release binaries under whatever license they choose. But without an license attachment approved by mitchell, this whole discussion is moot.

Ben G.:"We're looking to go gold on Tuesday November 2, but it's possible this could sneak in after that."

Oh my ()&@#*PJCF*()#$&()&*!@)( !

This is more important than anything I've read here in the last two years!

I'm staring at the bug report in vain, hoping to find "4/1/04" in there somewhere.

This is insanity. This compromises the entire Mozilla project! THIS MUST BE MORE WIDELY PUBLICIZED!

(I first saw mention of this as an aside in a Slashdot discussion, and I asked here if it was real or not -- no one had any evidence either way. This is, as they say, some serious shit.)

I find it almost impossible to believe, to be honest. It means that Fireweasel is in the WRONG hands, that its supporters MUST stop supporting it in its current form, that the "Spread Firefox" campaign is to be looked at VERY critically, and that anyone who values free software and open source software must tread very carefully indeed.

Ben Goodger is apparently a very misguided individual, and I seriously question his motives. Any thoughts, corrections, antidepressants?

-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function