approval from:
Seven1 
DaDogs
| reply to B
Re: NY Times? 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! |
|
 Seven1
join:2002-07-24
Lexington, KY | Amen. |
|
BPremium,MVM
join:2000-10-28 | 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 |
|
|
|
approval from:
DaDogs
| "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! |
|
BPremium,MVM
join:2000-10-28 | said by Googolplex:
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.
No, you can't. The Mozilla foundation could stop or restrict their own distribution of the software at any time. We would then have to rely on OTHER, less trusted sources to download it, or a fork thereof.
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.
Actually, Gandhi was angling for that great role in 'Sneakers' the whole time.
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function |
|
| --- "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. |
|
