The Mozilla Foundation, the non-profit organisation behind the popular browser Firefox are fuming over claims that Dell are found to have been charging customers to install the browser on new computers.
The Computer Manufacturer allegedly offered to install Mozilla Firefox, for a fee of £16.25 (about $27).
The shrewd customer took a screenshot of the page, and sent it to a British News Website.
Here is the full image for your scrutiny,
Firefox is an open source browser which is freely distributed, and charging for the same is not only shameful, but the use of their Trademark without legal consent is a violation of their policies. Allow me to quote the exact clause in their 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 (whether by download or other media) may not be subject to a fee, or tied to subscribing to or purchasing a service, or the collection of personal information. If you want to sell the product, you may do so, but you must call that product by another name—one unrelated to Mozilla or any of the Mozilla Marks. Remember that we do not want the public to be confused.
Mozilla are said to have launched an investigation with legal teams.
This is what they had to say when The Register contacted them,
"Mozilla is looking into this as it does not comply with terms and conditions policy. I’m afraid we can’t really answer your questions until Mozilla hears from legal teams."
Dell released a statement to The Next Web saying,
“Dell Configuration Services, including the application loading service, ensure customers have a complete, ready to use product when it arrives. In this particular situation, the customer would not be charged for the Mozilla Firefox software download, rather the fee would cover the time and labour involved for factory personnel to load a different image than is provided on the system’s standard configuration.”
Despite the statement which claims they are charging for the “labor” involved, this is indeed a clear violation of the distribution agreement.