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.
back
4 comments
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/
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?
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.
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...)
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!
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.)
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
The problem is the law. It's worth learning about.