Dell UK is charging £16.25 to Install Firefox, Mozilla denied for any such Deal(techcomunication.com)
techcomunication.com
Dell UK is charging £16.25 to Install Firefox, Mozilla denied for any such Deal
http://www.techcomunication.com/dell-uk-is-charging-16-25-to-install-firefox-mozilla-denied-for-any-such-deal/
9 comments
What is the problem? Someone has to be paid for the time they spend on the installation. Bearing in mind it takes a minute or so max. for this job, hourly rates (or profits) at Dell must be mouth-watering.
The problem is the law. It's worth learning about.
Or you know, they just have an image and are trying to screw people over further.
> Someone has to be paid for the time they spend on the installation.
"Someone" being a script.
"Someone" being a script.
Not entirely. It's more likely some human intervention is needed somewhere in the process to select the image/install containing Firefox. Although it's likely something like a checkbox, or maybe fysically selecting another disk - 16.25 seems a bit steep for that, yes.
It actually does require a chackbox - customer checks it when ordering ;)
Booting computer and manually installing OS/updates requires quite a bunch of [man] hours (given that they ship a bit more than few PCs a day when distributing a batch) so it is safe to assume they do not do that, but instead clone disks. it is most likely that master is kept up to date by a script.
And a script is not written (and not necessarily executed) by itself.
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.
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.
somebody needs to write the script, maintain and debug it, handle customer questions related to the option, ... The fact that we can automate stuff doesn't make it free. Also, as any good consultant will tell you, the price you can charge your customer is not dependent on how much work something is for you but rather how much value the customer gains. Installing FF on a computer takes me like 15 minutes if I include everything - from asking the password, installing, migrating any bookmarks, cleaning the download etc. That amounts to an hourly rate of about 60 GBP, a reasonable price if you ask me.
The problem is Mozilla's trademark policy [1]:
"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/
"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/
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).
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...)
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...)
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".
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!
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!
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.
Lexis and code generation, I guess
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.)
(this wouldn't apply to other laptops that come with preinstalled Ubuntu, for example, since there is no specific charge to add Firefox.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
As I understand it, it would permitted for Dell to build their own binary from source (having previously changed any mention of Firefox to something else), and to charge for that software.
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?
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?
It is devaluing the brand. Basically Dell is trying to earn easy money off of the name Firefox being well known. Some customers may just recognize the name and assume that the charge is reasonable, not knowing that they could easily install it for free. When they find out what is going on, they can easily say things like "Firefox is a scam" without further context, which hurts Firefox.
I understand the trademark policy but I think in this case, it is vague. I can't see any difference between distribution and installation. What Dell is presumably doing sounds like a lame service monetization, since Mozilla is an open source web browser.
The difference is akin to me handing you a CD with a firefox installer on it (distribution) and me installing firefox on your computer (service). I can't charge for the distribution, but I can charge you for the service. Dell says it's a service and from what I've read I'm following their argument. It's still a fairly expensive service, but having someone come in and do it for a computer illiterate would be just as expensive or more.
I see your point.
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?
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?
I don't see anything wrong with this. If the option is selected, probably someone at the shipping out location (or retail location) manually will install firefox, or windows image with firefox on it. It is perfectly fine. Even if automated, automation is not free. Are they overcharging? Probably.
I disagree that it does not follow mozilla's terms, they are selling the service, as stated, not the browser.
I disagree that it does not follow mozilla's terms, they are selling the service, as stated, not the browser.
[deleted]
Please read the HN guidelines and submit the original source. This blog is written by someone who is not even fluent in English.
For the 'not fluent' part, you are being harsh (and kind of rude). Not everybody can be fluent on Californian tech-community english. The post is in english, easy to understand and there is no ambiguity.
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.
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.
I could not agree more.
So... I can pay more so I can check a box on Dell's site now instead of on Ninite's site later?
I can see why people might choose to pick this option when ordering a computer for a less computer savvy friend or relative. Finding and downloading Firefox safely is not trivial if you aren't very tech literate. I just did a search for "firefox" on Google a few moments ago and these are the top 'results': http://i.imgur.com/FZDn4rB.png Obviously most HN users will notice that those ads don't point to the official Mozilla site, but to dodgy third party sites where the software is bundled with spyware and toolbars.
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
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
I expect people do raise the issue with malware ads with Google, but as stated its a Google problem and not much Mozilla can do about it.
Why in the hell would mozilla be pushing this as PR?
Why in the hell would mozilla be pushing this as PR?
>its a Google problem and not much Mozilla can do about it.
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?
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?
'this' meant the story about Dell 'selling' Firefox, which will probably end up as a bit of a shitty thing to do but likely within their rights. You seem to have reached a confusing conclusion that this is out the the Mozilla PR machine.
I don't see the point, they are charging to install software, is that upsetting? Is it the fact that it is free software they are charging for that is upsetting?
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?
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?
The point is that they're monetizing Mozilla property by using their trademarks and their name recognition without permission.
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?
But what about "Fair Use"? Just owning a trademark doesn't give you the right to forbid other people using it. It's pretty clear from the wording that Dell is offering to install third party software. I'm pretty sure this doesn't violate the trademark, and I don't think Mozilla's policies apply in this case.
A violation of the trademark would be if Dell installed a custom fork of Firefox and called it "Firefox".
A violation of the trademark would be if Dell installed a custom fork of Firefox and called it "Firefox".
It's clear that you do not understand the legal issues here. Then again... it's clear that MOST people commenting here do not understand the law.
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.
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.
Please explain why Dell is clearly violating the trademark. Just saying it's CLEAR (in capital letters) is not a sound argument.
Is the issue that there is a cost directly attributed to the trademarked software? If Dell lets users choose from a list of products to preinstall without cost would that then make it acceptable? What if the system has a fixed fee for build/setup? What if that fee is dependent on the number of different products chosen? At what point are they really "charging" for trademarked software?
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?
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?
It would be extremely easy to circumvent.
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.
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.
If I put up a "Microsoft Windows security patch installation service [price tag]" on ad banners, it would be misleading and consider by most as a shady business. It would also likely attract the legal ire of Microsoft lawyers.
Not particularly bothered about that. I charge a minimum of £30+VAT to do exactly the same if someone asks me.
[deleted](2)
A couple of thoughts:
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
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
1. It can be surprisingly hard to install free software without getting crapware bundled installers. Look at java...
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.
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.