Comment 437 for bug 269656

@Mark Shuttleworth

"We could [disable the Website Services by default], yes, but I think that would be a significant loss. The
services are not anti-virus (and hence of less value on Linux), they are
anti-phishing. Unfortunately, the phishing virus affects the human brain
and not the OS :-/ so I think launching Firefox on Linux without the
anti-phishing service would be significantly less safe than IE on
Windows with their anti-phishing service."

Duly noted; the anti-phishing services are valuable/beneficial to Firefox users among the Ubuntu community.

"We have been driving hard to get a good result here (and publishing the
EULA-version was part of that driving process) that specifically sets a
good precedent for integrated network services. Such services will be a
feature of the future of software, and even where that software is
FLOSS, we want to be able to take advantage of the available set of
services."

Agreed; the efforts thus far have produced valuable results with respect to precedent-setting.

"Services, unlike software, will always come with terms of use. There are
terms of use involved every time you use Google, Ebay, Yahoo, Wikipedia,
Sourceforge, and like it or not your use of the service usually
constitutes assent to those terms."

Here is where our perspectives begin to differ.

Services - AKA "Software Servies", AKA "Software as a Service (Saas)" - are nothing more than software applications that are installed on a remote server rather than the local machine. As software applications, they are either open- or closed-source. They are either free or non-free.

Anti-phishing services bundled/built with Firefox are fundamentally different from the various SaaS applications to which you equated the anti-phishing services.

Use of Google services (et al) requires the end user's explicit agreement to use the services, by means of using the browser to access those services and explicitly accepting the terms of their use (through account creation/login/use).

Use of Mozilla's Firefox anti-phishing services, on the other hand, requires no explicit agreement to use the services; end-user agreement is implied by leaving the services enabled.

This difference is critical. I do not imply my consent to use Google services (et al) simply by using the browser in the default configuration; on the other hand, if Mozilla's anti-phishing services are enabled by default, I *do* imply my consent to them simply by using the browser in the default configuration.

Thus, as I understand it, in Firefox's default configuration, we now have end-users' implicit agreement to end-use restriction with respect to the non-free services bundled/built with Firefox. That means that Firefox, in its default configuration, is encumbered - and therefore, non-free - software. How does this circumstance *not* violate the requirements for packages in Main?

Wouldn't a *far* better course of action be to package Firefox in Ubuntu with the non-free services disabled, and then present the user (either through Mozilla's notice screens, or else through an Ubuntu customization) with information regarding those services, what they are, why they are disabled by default, how their use is encumbered, and how to enable them should the user choose to do so?

To be honest, my decision on whether or not to use those services will be how they impact the speed/performance of Firefox - not any philosophical issues with using non-free software. That said, Firefox with the services enabled by default becomes, by definition, encumbered/non-free software, in contradiction to the requirements for software included/supported in Main.

"In addition, there is going to be a lot of discussion about what sorts
of terms are acceptable to people who are aware to issues of
intellectual property, data protection and the value of the digital
commons. I.e. - you and me. We don't yet have a view on that, there is
no "GPL for Services" but we expect one to emerge over the next few
years, and this work by Mozilla is an important first step."

I think the lack of a "GPL for Services" is mostly irrelevant, for the most part. With the exception of Mozilla's Firefox anti-phishing service, no other non-free service implies acceptance of end-user encumbrance in Main.

I am trying to come up with proper analogies. I considered Magnatunes integration in Amarok/Rhythmbox, but even this analogy does not hold, since Magnatunes use within these applications requires explicit acceptance of the end-user agreement.

"I should say that Mozilla has been very responsive once this issue was
clearly on the public table, and they are clearly committed to the
values that we hold dear. Organisations always have a diversity of
thinking on a subject, and it's important to see what the leaders do
once something is firmly on their agenda. In this case, Mozilla's
leaders have been quick to stand for the things that most people here
care about. As someone said, this EULA hasn't landed in a stable
release, this has been part of the development process and we expect to
have a good position in place before Intrepid's RC."

And I will conclude by reiterating my pleasure with Mozilla's responsiveness in this regard. At this point, the only further concession from Mozilla that I would like to see is to allow distributions to disable the non-free services by default, without Mozilla revoking their rights to use the Firefox branding.

Should Mozilla concede this point, then the issue becomes one that rests entirely in Ubuntu's camp - in how Ubuntu handles non-free services bundled with otherwise free software in Main.