1. cmunic8r99's Avatar
    It seems to me that AT&T's requirement to have a tethering plan to use Firefox on the laptop dock is, in effect, selling Firefox. This is reinforced by the explixit mention of Firefox in the requirement for the tethering plan (as opposed to restricting "web browsers in general" or "any web-connected app".

    IANAL, but I am pretty sure that is a violation of Mozilla's licensing. Or am I missing something?
    02-04-2011 07:31 AM
  2. corneliusm's Avatar
    Firefox's LGPL license does not forbid sale of physical copies, whether it be on a device or a CD. Yes, you can (and some do) legally sell physical copies of Firefox, and the Mozilla Foundation won't take action, provided you don't claim ownership and violate their trademarks.

    However, only idiots would buy it.

    It may be unethical to repackage and sell opensource software, but most licenses allow it. Otherwise, companies like Red Hat wouldn't be able to operate.
    02-04-2011 07:43 AM
  3. Chris Kerrigan's Avatar
    Firefox's LGPL license does not forbid sale of physical copies, whether it be on a device or a CD. Yes, you can (and some do) legally sell physical copies of Firefox, and the Mozilla Foundation won't take action, provided you don't claim ownership and violate their trademarks.

    However, only idiots would buy it.

    It may be unethical to repackage and sell opensource software, but most licenses allow it. Otherwise, companies like Red Hat wouldn't be able to operate.
    This. There are plenty of sites out there that try and spoof the less educated consumers into paying a few bucks for Firefox, and then taking the money and running. As unethical and absurd as this is, Mozilla's license doesn't prevent the sale or reproduction of Firefox.

    In terms of them essentially selling Firefox, I think it's a good point. But again, it goes back to it not technically being in violation of any terms.
    02-04-2011 10:42 AM
  4. cmunic8r99's Avatar
    Thanks - I figured I was missing something.
    02-04-2011 01:11 PM
  5. moosc's Avatar
    Also reason they have FireFox is its optimized to run on that platform. I would prefer Google Chrome but guess its not up to par.
    02-06-2011 11:04 AM
  6. corneliusm's Avatar
    Also reason they have FireFox is its optimized to run on that platform. I would prefer Google Chrome but guess its not up to par.
    While V8 (Chrome's fast Javascript engine) has been ported to ARM, it's not quite as optimized as the x86 version. Also, the Linux version of Chrome (for me anyway) doesn't seem to be as stable as Firefox.

    Chrome is awesome on Windows- it's my primary browser. However, on Linux, Firefox reigns supreme.
    02-06-2011 11:45 AM
  7. Chris Kerrigan's Avatar
    While V8 (Chrome's fast Javascript engine) has been ported to ARM, it's not quite as optimized as the x86 version. Also, the Linux version of Chrome (for me anyway) doesn't seem to be as stable as Firefox.

    Chrome is awesome on Windows- it's my primary browser. However, on Linux, Firefox reigns supreme.
    Yep, agreed 100%. I have a dual boot Linux and Windows partition on my HDD, and I use Firefox on my Linux partition and Chrome on my Windows partition.
    02-06-2011 12:41 PM

Tags for this Thread

LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD