Firefox newly insists on showing an EULA

[Mackenzie Morgan]

On Mon, 2008-09-15 at 14:01 +0200, Markus Hitter wrote:
> Am 15.09.2008 um 13:45 schrieb Peteris Krisjanis:
> 
> > trademarks are trademarks. They must be enforced and only
> > way for owners to  control them is agreements.
> 
> Almost every industry product we know has some sort of a trademark.  
> Yet, when you buy paper towels, grocery, shoes, ... nowhere you have  
> to agree to such an agreement. Not even when buying high-level items  
> like cars.
> 
> This perception of trademark enforcement you describe ist really  
> unique to some parts of the software industry.


This is true.  Why would this be a EULA?  End-User?  If you're *just* a
user, you're not modifying it and so trademark issues don't apply to you
anyway.  This is a Modifiers License Agreement, or something.  No reason
for it to show up on releases.  If it shows up in Bon Echo, where it's
being branched and modified by anyone, ok, sure that makes sense because
modification is going into it now, except, well, it's already been
renamed Bon Echo to avoid the Firefox trademark issues, so what gives?

-- 
Mackenzie Morgan
http://ubuntulinuxtipstricks.blogspot.com
apt-get moo
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-discuss/attachments/20080915/2a1c0f96/attachment.sig>