As you probably know the new Mozilla EULA is causing quiet a ruckus in the Ubuntu community. At least from what I know so far.
I'm currently on a ad hoc debate about this issue but I would ike to understand more of what the problem is all about. Honestly I cannot understand why the criticism.
One one hand, Ubuntu doesn't provide a "Social Contract" in any terms similar to Debian's, for which I don't see the problem of the EULA's being displayed on FF first use under Ubuntu. On the other hand, I can see this EULA making it difficult to justify FF presence in the Ubuntu's Main repository and having eventually to move it to Restricted. But there is nothing stopping Ubuntu from using software from this repository as default software.
I'm also a little confused as to why so many feel this issue had to be openly debated? For one I cannot see how a conclusion would ever be reached and Ubuntu culdn't just wait for said decision on behalf of the commmunity, neither could it just wipe out FF and replace it with something else while de debate went along, without this affecting the product.
Finally... given the Mozilla EULA classifying the product as a commercial product, doesn't this in fact force Mozilla to adopt the EULA under USA laws? I'm asking this last one because there's some debate whether Mozilla needed in fact an EULA and this is all just Mozilla nitpicking...