Dell UK is charging £16.25 to Install Firefox, Mozilla denied for any such Deal
techcomunication.com
techcomunication.com
It's all well and good for Mozilla to be questioning Dell over charging for this, but perhaps they should also spend some time trying to make it so that users can find Firefox safely from the biggest search engine in the world. Mozilla have plenty of experience at public relations. When they want to they can get their press releases and stories in just about every tech news sites in the world (this story being an apparent example of that, this is the second submission to HN because it is being so widely reported). If Google are refusing to sort out the problem[1] then Mozilla need to put up some fight and get the public on their side. Put together stories with screenshots and explain the security and privacy risks of the spyware and rogue browser extensions that those sites bundle.
[1] which seems to be the situation; I've been noticing these malware ads for the last year or so (and they've probably been around a lot longer) and apparently repeated complains have been raised
Why in the hell would mozilla be pushing this as PR?
What they can do about it is complain loudly and publicly to try and force Google to stop their shitty behaviour. The same way they engaged in PR campaigns about Firefox not being allowed on iOS or H264 requiring patent licences, or dozens of other topics.
>Why in the hell would mozilla be pushing this as PR?
Because that seems to be the only solution left open to them to try and stop millions of users of their software being infected with malware. Are you saying that Mozilla should only talk to the media when it is about ideological political things like software patents, and not about real world threats to their users?
"If you are using the Mozilla Mark(s) for the unaltered binaries you are distributing, you may not charge for that product. By not charging, we mean the Mozilla product must be without cost and its distribution [...] may not be [...] tied to purchasing a service"
IANAL, but Dell is free to charge for the installation, but then they need to call it the Arctic Bear Browser.
[1]: http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/trademarks/policy/
The issue is that, by using the binary, which contains a Mozilla-owned trademark, they become subject to Mozilla's trademark policy.
IANAL, and am curious: What binds Dell to adhere to Mozilla's trademark policy? They are not using the Firefox trademark in a way which is likely to cause confusion (assuming they are using the official binary) or to devalue the Firefox brand. (How) can a trademark-owner go about adding their own conditions to the use of a trademark, over and above those provided for by trademark law?
Couldn't you say the same for any service where you _actually_ distribute it as well? "I'm not distributing it, I'm simple charging for the service of easy installation".
(I'm also not AL, though...)
If someone can't argue based on the meaning of the words in a piece of text, what else can they argue about? The grammar? The spelling? Surely we _only_ want arguments based on semantics!
(this wouldn't apply to other laptops that come with preinstalled Ubuntu, for example, since there is no specific charge to add Firefox.)
Installing it on a computer somebody already owns isn't distribution, you can charge for hours there, but installing it on something in the factory is different.
My problem is the approach. It is quite common to purchase additional softwares like MS Office, while buying a computer. And generally, you are paying for the software, not for the installation service.
Mozilla is one of the most easy-to-download & setup software. If a person is not able to download Mozilla on her own, how can she sense the necessity to have a Mozilla Web Browser?
"Someone" being a script.
It could be argued that the price is not fair, but it's still an option; it's common practice to add such options, in this price range, when purchasing computers online.
1 - Windows comes with a 'Browser Choice' icon on the desktop out of the box, it can't be that difficult to install Firefox, even if you're a novice user.
2 - I doubt that they have a single person going through and running the Firefox installer each time somebody checks that box. It's more likely that they use a different image for the computer, one with Firefox preinstalled.
3 - I'd be dubious to accept a preinstalled version of a browser. Let alone from Dell. The first thing I'd do with a new computer from an OEM is remove all of the preinstalled crap. Who is this geared towards?
4 - I feel like I'm missing a trick here. £16.25 for one version of Firefox!? I should get on to Apple and see about bundling my "Install all Firefoxes" shell script, and charge per version installed from there... £455 for every new Mac would be nice! https://github.com/omgmog/install-all-firefox
2. If only 1 order of 1000 has the option checked, then that order alone would have to cover the cost of setting up that image. Automation isn't free.
I can't see the standpoint of mozilla either, surely you can't be required to have permission to use a "brand name" just because you mention that you can install some software for a fee? EDIT: I did read mozillas terms, but still think it makes no sense.
If I set up a store selling computers, surely I can, without permission of software manufacturers, allow customers a choice of software and offer to purchase a license & preinstall the software for the customer?
If I set up a store selling computers, surely I can, without permission of software manufacturers, allow customers a choice of software and offer to purchase a license & preinstall the software for the customer?
I can see how it is a bad thing for Mozilla if dell charges and uses their trademark, but shouldn't it be easy to circumvent by just moving the charges around on the order page?
Sell it as the Dell Software Power Bundle for 50 quid, or so. My take of the problem that there's a direct cost involved as soon as you add Firefox to your order and that's clearly against Mozilla's guidelines.
A violation of the trademark would be if Dell installed a custom fork of Firefox and called it "Firefox".
Dell is in CLEAR violation here. This is not really an arguable point. The questions really are:
a - why did Dell do something SO fking stupid? b - what is Mozilla going to do about it?
I suspect there are some emergency high level meetings going on at Dell right now.
I disagree that it does not follow mozilla's terms, they are selling the service, as stated, not the browser.
Deleted comment
No that's my minimum charge for 30 minutes of time. For that you get 30 minutes of my attention, a VAT invoice and warrantied work.
It's a bargain.
It's up to you to get value for money out of that time. If you want Firefox installed, that's up to you but I'm not going to turn down the work.
Yes, post from foreigner for who english is not their first language can have mistakes, but tolerance and constructive criticism is the way.
Sorry for the rant, your point about the "original source" still stand. Even more in this case where the original source is a major newspaper, and supposedly more trustworthy.