Closed Bug 229590 Opened 22 years ago Closed 5 years ago

Bundle Plugins with Mozilla

Categories

(Marketing :: General, task, P3)

Product:
Marketing
Component:
General
Type:
task

Tracking

(Not tracked)

Status:
RESOLVED WONTFIX

People

(Reporter: Bugzilla-alanjstrBugs, Assigned: pkim)

References

Details

Netscape signed licensing agreemnets to distribute Flash, Java, and other plugins. I think that Mozilla.org should do the same. This will probably involve seperate licenses for distribution via the web and via cdrom.
General license info for Macromedia: http://www.macromedia.com/support/shockwave/info/licensing/faq.html http://www.macromedia.com/support/shockwave/info/licensing/ Java, well their Licensing link is broken (like all links at the buttom of http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/index.jsp)
I like the idea of bundling plugins on the CD, it will make installation much easier for the average end-user. Bundling them with the downloads would increase the file size too much though. A plugins page on mozilla.org or mozdev with links to downloads from authors' sites would be better. Shockwave + Flash can't be distributed on the Internet. Only Windows and MacOS versions can be distributed. Licensing is by online form. You must provide an estimate of the number of players you plan to distribute during signup. Full Java License is available from download page for each version. Current is: http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/j2re-1_4_2_03-license.html This license says anyone can redistribute Java on CD if it is necessary to run their software. I don't think this covers us so we'd need to phone them on the number here: http://servlet.java.sun.com/help/legal_and_licensing/#90 RealOne Player Licensing FAQ: http://forms.real.com/rnforms/resources/licensing/player_faq.html RealOne Player can't be distributed online. Localised versions are available in 12 languages. Require quarterly distribution reports. Signup through online form here: http://forms.real.com/rnforms/resources/licensing/ So licensing Shockwave/Flash and RealOne for the Mozilla CD would be easy.
Yes, we want to have plugins available on the CD and hopefully also for the download of Firebird by 1.0. This is probably something I need to take the lead on since it overlaps with other partnerships we're discussing with plugin vendors.
Re: comment 4 I doubt that you would lose the option to download a build of Mozilla or FB without plugins.
of course.
Depends on #213774 because we should have the plugins branded for Mozilla.
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Depends on: 213774
Priority: -- → P3
That implies that 213774 should happen first. I'd say they're seperate issue.
would it be possible to bundle some plugins in an xpi ?
Installing Opera impressed me because they offered to install Java. I think Mozilla should do the same. irongut: > Shockwave + Flash can't be distributed on the Internet. Only Windows and MacOS > versions can be distributed. Perhaps, but we can distribute the .xpi > RealOne Player can't be distributed online. What about Helix Player? Still, we can offer all this through .xpi that will grab the stuff from their site.
(In reply to comment #11) > irongut: > > > Shockwave + Flash can't be distributed on the Internet. Only Windows and > > MacOS versions can be distributed. > > Perhaps, but we can distribute the .xpi Shockwave + Flash can only be distributed by CD, not online. Read the distributors license agreement. We could have a link that direct you to their site though
Doesn't the Internet Explorer installer have a checkbox to install Flash?
Re: comment 12 I believe the XPI for Flash merely downloads Flash from the web and installs it. The XPI doesn't containt Flash--only the tools to download it.
> I believe the XPI for Flash merely downloads Flash from the web and installs it. > The XPI doesn't containt Flash--only the tools to download it. Not always.. For instance Doron's XPI has flash bundled inside http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/doron/archives/004873.html But, afaik, xpi has that capability, and that's exactly what I was talking about. There is no reason that the .xpi can't just have an install.js script that grabs the installer off their site, is there?
*** Bug 249098 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://www.macromedia.com/support/shockwave/info/licensing/license.html as i see it, 2a.iii allows distribution through the internet now but 2b.ii says we would need a special agreement to mod it into an xpi ...
How about we actually contact them and ask?
ok, done, waiting for reply...
BLAH ! http://www.mozilla.org/press/mozilla-2004-06-30.html whatever that means in the end ... nice nobody mentioned it ... bart@decrem.com still with us anyway ?
> bart@decrem.com still with us anyway ? I wouldn't worry about that. Mozilla Foundation staff have provided nearly all activities in the marketing forums. Hey, user contributors, where are you when we need it?
What does the plugin model have to do with bundling the plugins?
well, that means there are people from both sides already in tight contact. that would make things much easier ... if not necessary agreements already exist
Any progress on this? We'd like it for Firefox 1.0
macromedia said: Michael, we are already working with the Mozilla Foundation to do this. Please contact Rafael Ebron or Bart Decrem in the US Mozilla operation. Also, this email address is not public. Please do not continue to use it. Thanks, Waleed Anbar
Well, this bug is assigned to bart, so is all good.
Correct. We're on the case.
Blocks: 224227
Please also take a look at https://addons.update.mozilla.org/plugins/
*** Bug 217400 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Is there any chance this will happen for Firefox 3?
basil might be a better owner for this. Not the best person to know whats going on with the plugin vendors, but don't think we have any plans for packaging plugins; just improvements to how they are managed and updated via a.m.o. and interaction of some firefox features which treat them more as addons. keeping the download package for firefox small is critical to ensuring continued high number of downloads and marketshare growth.
Assignee: bart → basil
Status: ASSIGNED → NEW
"don't think we have any plans for packaging plugins" Well, this bug seems to be specifically about packaging plugins. Given that the bug has been lying dormant for several years, wouldn't it be better to close it rather than re-using it for something else?
Assignee: bhashem → pkim
Depends on: 632764
No longer depends on: 632764

Since Mozilla was still the code name of a Netscape Communications initiative to build the next generation browser suite and replace the aging Netscape Communicator project, I've been running Mozilla code. One reason I was running Mozilla code was precisely the capacity of the extension. I was able to alter and extend how the browser behaved. Back in the Firefox 3.X days, with 115 extensions loaded, I had a test profile. It was mainly to see if I could, and to see how long it took for the browser to load and initialize (as it had to load and instantiate all of those extensions). With around 40. my manufacturing profile was slimmer,

I've never had a problem doing inappropriate stuff with a malicious extension, and don't remember hearing of one.

I believe it's been quite some time since a human being manually checked every extension on the Mozilla Addons web. Simply, there are so many. Since extensions now have to be pure JavaScript, automated scanning is made simpler by using the Web Extensions API.

I'm closing this due https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/npapi-plugins

Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 5 years ago
Resolution: --- → WONTFIX
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.