5 ms·

They're not charging to "distribute" firefox as a product in this instance, they are simply charging for the service/time to install it so I don't think this ap

by jiggy2011 13y ago

They're not charging to "distribute" firefox as a product in this instance, they are simply charging for the service/time to install it so I don't think this applies, it wouldn't be any different from geek squad etc charging to install firefox on a PC (IANAL).

markild 13y ago
That sounds like semantics. 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...)
- peterpostle 13y ago
  I've never understood the complaint that something is "just semantics", or "you're arguing semantics". 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!
  - MatthewWilkes 13y ago
    The meaning of the sentence as a whole. "Just semantics" is used when you hinge your argument on the subtleties of meaning of one word.
  - iopq 13y ago
    Lexis and code generation, I guess
- jiggy2011 13y ago
  Software licenses are almost entirely about semantics. :) I think the difference would be between saying "I will give you this DVD containing a copy of firefox but you must agree to my $16 installation charge" vs saying "for $16 I will on your behalf obtain firefox from the mozilla foundation and perform the service of installing on your computer".
MatthewWilkes 13y ago
They're charging to install it on something that they then distribute. The distribution contains 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.
- alkonaut 13y ago
  If the problem is the binaries being installed and shipped, that can be easily circumvented by dell installing a downloader stub that simply downloads and installs Firefox for the customer when the computer is first started. The charge would be for the setup of that automatic installer process.
  - scott_w 13y ago
    Nope, you're still distributing, just in a more elaborate way to try and evade the trademark agreement, which courts don't look too kindly on.
tehwalrus 13y ago
It's getting distributed as well, when they ship the machine. Note that the trademark policy applies to Firefox in binary form on any medium, including a hard drive. (this wouldn't apply to other laptops that come with preinstalled Ubuntu, for example, since there is no specific charge to add Firefox.)

markild 13y ago

That sounds like semantics. 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...)

peterpostle 13y ago
I've never understood the complaint that something is "just semantics", or "you're arguing semantics". 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!
- MatthewWilkes 13y ago
  The meaning of the sentence as a whole. "Just semantics" is used when you hinge your argument on the subtleties of meaning of one word.
- iopq 13y ago
  Lexis and code generation, I guess
jiggy2011 13y ago
Software licenses are almost entirely about semantics. :) I think the difference would be between saying "I will give you this DVD containing a copy of firefox but you must agree to my $16 installation charge" vs saying "for $16 I will on your behalf obtain firefox from the mozilla foundation and perform the service of installing on your computer".

MatthewWilkes 13y ago

They're charging to install it on something that they then distribute. The distribution contains 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.

alkonaut 13y ago
If the problem is the binaries being installed and shipped, that can be easily circumvented by dell installing a downloader stub that simply downloads and installs Firefox for the customer when the computer is first started. The charge would be for the setup of that automatic installer process.
- scott_w 13y ago
  Nope, you're still distributing, just in a more elaborate way to try and evade the trademark agreement, which courts don't look too kindly on.

tehwalrus 13y ago

It's getting distributed as well, when they ship the machine. Note that the trademark policy applies to Firefox in binary form on any medium, including a hard drive. (this wouldn't apply to other laptops that come with preinstalled Ubuntu, for example, since there is no specific charge to add Firefox.)