Slashdot Mirror

This story doesn't seem to be telling us anything new - "Mozilla and Debian are having a tussle over the Firefox name, some people have suggested Debian may rename Firefox as Iceweasel, here are my thoughts". Um, /. home page, here we come!

TFA even refers to Debian "having done this" when in fact Firefox is still called Firefox in Debian, and there is no iceweasel package in Debian as yet.

Please could people now just shut up about this issue until some actual news comes through of what is actually going to happen. "Debian releases iceweasel package, announces timeline for phasing out firefox" is a story. "Debian decides to rename it 'Firefox Community Edition, Debian' and dares Mozilla to argue it's not complying with Mozilla's policies" is another story (the one I, personally, would like to see). "Some guy on a blog links to a few other people who are yakking about this", isn't.

Package names and content (some distros breake some stuff up, the reverse is also happening) differ thus dependencies are a problem. No one afaik have come up with a good idea how to translate dependencies between distros. Not that I think you're unaware of this option, but you can always compile from source: ftp://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/. There is some sort of package "installer" (I've forgotten the name of the app, sorry) that is cross distro but can only install from source, doesn't integrate with the normal package management and just keeps track of installed files (so it doesn't handle dependencies at all).

Debian wants to change the code-base of Firefox. Fine. allowed.

Debian wants to get a free ride

Im sure you will counter with: security patches after mozilla.org stops supporting $VER_NOW dont qualify. Only partially true: with IBM/RedHat/Novell supporting mozilla 1.4 long after .org dropped it

At the time, we obviously
weren't taking that part seriously. We are now, and we're saying its
not ok.

Isn't more likely that Debian is applying changes that are breaking functionality just like this one: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=3 78667 ?

Are you literate? I mean, can you read? DID you in fact read the discussion in the bug report?

The Firefox extension was broken. It happens to work with the build configuration from mozilla.com but it's still broken. Debian changed a linker option and exposed the break. Not Debian's fault.

But since quite a few extensions do the same broken thing, Debian put in a workaround specifically to handle this kind of case.

Come on!

Do you really think that Debian guy are able to know about and fix security problems faster than the original developers of any software?
And are you saying that the Mozilla foundation doesn't want to quickly fix any security problem? or that they don't care about their users?

Isn't more likely that Debian is applying changes that are breaking functionality just like this one: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=3 78667 ?
If they change the way the software works it's clear that it's not the same software than the original so there's no reason to keep on naming it that way.

That can't possibly be correct! What is that weasel doing to that poor sphere?!

I guess that's what we should expect from the creators of Woody...

http://www.debian.org/logos/

Debian Official Use Logo License

Copyright (c) 1999 Software in the Public Interest

      1. This logo may only be used if:
                    * the product it is used for is made using a documented procedure as published on www.debian.org (for example official CD-creation)
                    * official approval is given by Debian for its use in this purpose
      2. May be used if an official part of debian (decided using the rules in I) is part of the complete product, if it is made clear that only this part is officially approved
      3. We reserve the right to revoke a license for a product

Permission has been given to use the official logo on clothing (shirts, hats, etc) as long as they are made by a Debian developer and not sold for profit.

http://www.debian.org/logos/ Debian Official Use Logo License Copyright (c) 1999 Software in the Public Interest 1. This logo may only be used if: * the product it is used for is made using a documented procedure as published on www.debian.org (for example official CD-creation) * official approval is given by Debian for its use in this purpose 2. May be used if an official part of debian (decided using the rules in I) is part of the complete product, if it is made clear that only this part is officially approved 3. We reserve the right to revoke a license for a product Permission has been given to use the official logo on clothing (shirts, hats, etc) as long as they are made by a Debian developer and not sold for profit.

doom wrote:

how do you feel about patch policies? This apparently started out as a trademarked graphic problem, and then MoCo decided to expand it, and demand rights of approval of every Debian patch.

Sorry, but you're wrong. The patch approval thing was there from the start. Read the bug [debian.org]. From the initial description: "calling the browser Firefox requires the same approvals as are required for using the logo and other artwork".

Bug #354622, posted 27 Feb 2006, says that the previously agreed on compromise (using the name without the logos) is no good anymore. (Try re-reading the very sentence you quoted).

Bug #354622, posted 20 Sep 2006, then includes the requirement: "All changes the distributor wishes to make to the source code must be provided as discrete patches, along with a description of why the change is required"

What would happen if every open source software group demanded that the Debian Security team seek their approval on every move they make?

You need to understand that "Firefox" is a brand which ordinary end users are starting to recognize.

Most packages in debian are not.

Look, when a security issue comes up in an old version of Firefox which is no longer supported by mozilla, why can't debian just work with upstream to produce one fix which all distros can take advantage of, and which can be checked into mozilla.org CVS?

• I would be very surprised if they don't kick patches back upstream.
• Debian maintains Firefox code long after Mozilla has abandoned it.
• The idea of letting a vulnerability sit in "stable" while waiting for bureacratic approval from upstream does not sit well.

Just because MoCo no longer pays people to work on a specific branch doesn't mean Debian or others can't get patches checked in. This has happened in the past where Sun or IBM (IIRC) took over old branches that were abandoned by Mozilla.

doom wrote:

how do you feel about patch policies? This apparently started out as a trademarked graphic problem, and then MoCo decided to expand it, and demand rights of approval of every Debian patch.

Sorry, but you're wrong. The patch approval thing was there from the start. Read the bug [debian.org]. From the initial description: "calling the browser Firefox requires the same approvals as are required for using the logo and other artwork".

Bug #354622, posted 27 Feb 2006, says that the previously agreed on compromise (using the name without the logos) is no good anymore. (Try re-reading the very sentence you quoted).

Bug #354622, posted 20 Sep 2006, then includes the requirement: "All changes the distributor wishes to make to the source code must be provided as discrete patches, along with a description of why the change is required"

What would happen if every open source software group demanded that the Debian Security team seek their approval on every move they make?

You need to understand that "Firefox" is a brand which ordinary end users are starting to recognize.

Most packages in debian are not.

Look, when a security issue comes up in an old version of Firefox which is no longer supported by mozilla, why can't debian just work with upstream to produce one fix which all distros can take advantage of, and which can be checked into mozilla.org CVS?

• I would be very surprised if they don't kick patches back upstream.
• Debian maintains Firefox code long after Mozilla has abandoned it.
• The idea of letting a vulnerability sit in "stable" while waiting for bureacratic approval from upstream does not sit well.

Just because MoCo no longer pays people to work on a specific branch doesn't mean Debian or others can't get patches checked in. This has happened in the past where Sun or IBM (IIRC) took over old branches that were abandoned by Mozilla.

For those that have a problem with this, is it the cost or the principle of the matter? If it cost $50 instead of $500, would that change your mind?

Soytainly. A price of $50 per year for small businesses, including sole proprietorships, would be much more palatable. That's less than the price of a Windows OS license for two developer workstations over the three- to five-year life span of a Windows major release. It would be much easier for low-volume hardware makers to recover such a reduced fee from their customers.

If you care deeply about principles, you know where to find them.

how do you feel about patch policies? This apparently started out as a trademarked graphic problem, and then MoCo decided to expand it, and demand rights of approval of every Debian patch.

What would happen if every open source software group demanded that the Debian Security team seek their approval on every move they make?

Can you point me to where he made this remark?

The only comment he made was here, where he said it was meant for porting to other Operating Systems (as opposed to distributions). But other Linux distros follow this policy & other Mozilla people have agreed that it could be appropriate.

what would this...

http://bugs.debian.org/release-critical/

look like for windows? ;)

FYI, the tri-licensing issue is bug #330295 and is fixed in Firefox's trunk and whatever branch Firefox 2.0 is being built from.

http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/gerv/archives/2006/ 03/relicensing_complete.html

Actually, GNUzilla and IceWeasel are existing GNU projects to make FREE versions of Mozilla and FireFox. The name IceWeasle did not come from the Debian group alone.

Wikipedia says that it was originally coined by Nathanael Nerode in 2004 on the debian-legal mailing list.

``Nothing is completely free. Even the name 'LINUX' is copyrighted. So why don't they fork Linux because I can't change the name?''

Because it doesn't need to be "completely free"; it only needs to comply with the DFSG. Apparently, Mozilla imposed restrictions on the use of Firefox that were deemed incompatible with those. As long as no such restrictions are imposed on Linux, there is no need for Debian to fork it. If there is such a need, they probably will fork it.

``If you want Firefox on your system and want a COMPLETELY free system, just do the build of the source yourself.''

Which highlights one of the advantages of DFSG compliant software: Debian can build and distribute it, saving you work. They can apply patches, increasing security or better integrating it with the rest of the system. This is not possible with a lot of non-free (as per DFSG) software.

Looks like Debian is getting burned by its own arrogance.

The GPL-3 allows the copywrite holder to place certain restrictions on the licensee's use of the software, for instance no military/weapons use (don't like your stuff being used; Freedom's a biach isn't it). Restrictions on what parts of the code the use may or may not change; requiring links to download the source be maintained.

Now they being hit, once again, by restrictions the copywrite holders are placing on the distribution: if you distribute software that we own the copywrite to, you must maintain our branding. Sounds reasonable, the application is called Firefox and the logos and branding are part of the application; after all the copywrite holder does have the right to say what's part of application, (certain exceptions may apply in the case of illegal monopolies, and fraudlent activities). The usage restrictions also don't seem out of line with Debain's official logo usage.

Debian Official Use Logo License

Copyright (c) 1999 Software in the Public Interest

1. This logo may only be used if:
   • the product it is used for is made using a documented procedure as published on www.debian.org (for example official CD-creation)
   • official approval is given by Debian for its use in this purpose
2. May be used if an official part of debian (decided using the rules in I) is part of the complete product, if it is made clear that only this part is officially approved
3. We reserve the right to revoke a license for a product

Permission has been given to use the official logo on clothing (shirts, hats, etc) as long as they are made by a Debian developer and not sold for profit.

Looks like the Mozilla Foundation is pretty much in line with the Debian usage here.

So the Debian developers are free to change the code however they want, but they can't call it Firefox and they can't use the Firefox logos.

Have you ever tried to change Debian and release it as Debian?

No?

I thought so.

Debian also has restrictions if you want to use the official logo:
http://www.debian.org/logos/

So far we already have Debian GNU/Linux, Debian GNU/Hurd, Debian GNU/NetBSD, Debian GNU/kFreeBSD and maybe the beginning of Debian GNU/w32.

http://www.debian.org/ports/
http://debian-cygwin.sourceforge.net/

  Yes

Is it available for Debian?
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?archi ve=no&bug=354622

I have audited many many programs. Never once have I been ignored, or had to argue the case for anything I found and reported.

Still I know its not easy to write secure code, even with my auditing experience I've still released code with exploitable holes. You need to get everything right every time, the attacker only has to find one hole to take over...

tech-savvy community currently owned by Apple

It seems pretty clear to me after reading the thread including http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00 757.html -- Gervase says in that message that the whole thread is about using the trademark without the official logo. Did you miss that thread?

Now, the Mozilla Corporation is coming back a year later and invalidating that agreement. Debian isn't likely to try any "legal fight" to keep the name Firefox; if no agreement can be reached, they'll just rename everything and be done with it. But trying to claim they never had permission (or only "weak"ly had permission) is misstating the case.

That's not the real story. In fact it's a bogus story that omits a very important detail, which is that Debian had permission from Mozilla (Gervase Markham) to use the Firefox branding the way they were using it. See the bug report for the real story: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=3 54622

That's too bad about FireFox being essentially written in JavaScript. SpiderMonkey, the JavaScript interpreter in Firefox, is BY FAR the worst programming language (in terms of speed and memory use) of them all, according to the Computer Language Shoot Out.

When you compare all the languages on CPU time, SpiderMonkey JavaScript is twice as slow as the second worst, Ruby.

When you compare all the languages on memory usage, SpiderMonkey is 1.7 times as bloated as the second worst, Smalltalk Visual Works.

When you compare all the languages on CPU time AND memory usage, SpiderMonkey is 2.1 times as bad as the second worst, Smalltalk GST.

Firefox would be much better off using Lua, which is much easier to integrate with C code than SpiderMonkey's nightmare sausage factory, much faster, much smaller, and a vastly better language design. The fact is, that good language design has a huge effect on speed and memory usage -- you can't just stick your head in the sand and pretend good language design isn't important, like the PHP and JavaScript designers originally did and still do. Bad design paints your bad implementation into a bad corner, and there it stays.

Here's how Lua and SpiderMonkey JavaScript stack up against each other. Lua TOTALLY smokes JavaScript, in every category, by a long shot. It's not even funny -- it's tragic. Face it: JavaScript is not only a horribly designed language, but SpiderMonkey is also a horrible implementation of that horribly designed language. So it's not surprise that SpiderMonkey has always had gaping security holes, to complement its horribly slow speed and extremely huge size.

Lua x times better than SpiderMonkey JavaScript
binary-trees: 2.9 x faster, 6.6 x smaller
cheap-concurrency: No SpiderMonkey
fannkuch: 3.8 x faster, 1.2 x smaller
fasta: 8.2 x faster, 13.9 x smaller
k-nucleotide: 3.7 x faster, 10.0 x smaller
n-body: 6.3 x faster, 77 x smaller
nsieve: 7.8 x faster, 2.0 x smaller
nsieve-bits: 2.3 x faster, 29 x smaller
partial-sums: 7.0 x faster, 80 x smaller
recursive: 2.9 x faster, n/a3
regex-dna: 1.9 x faster, 5.3 x smaller
reverse-complement: 8.0 x faster, 5.8 x smaller
spectral-norm: 6.2 x faster, 71 x smaller
startup: 1.2 x slower, 1.1 x smaller
sum-file 5.3 x faster, 21 x smaller

-Don

That's too bad about FireFox being essentially written in JavaScript. SpiderMonkey, the JavaScript interpreter in Firefox, is BY FAR the worst programming language (in terms of speed and memory use) of them all, according to the Computer Language Shoot Out.

When you compare all the languages on CPU time, SpiderMonkey JavaScript is twice as slow as the second worst, Ruby.

When you compare all the languages on memory usage, SpiderMonkey is 1.7 times as bloated as the second worst, Smalltalk Visual Works.

When you compare all the languages on CPU time AND memory usage, SpiderMonkey is 2.1 times as bad as the second worst, Smalltalk GST.

Firefox would be much better off using Lua, which is much easier to integrate with C code than SpiderMonkey's nightmare sausage factory, much faster, much smaller, and a vastly better language design. The fact is, that good language design has a huge effect on speed and memory usage -- you can't just stick your head in the sand and pretend good language design isn't important, like the PHP and JavaScript designers originally did and still do. Bad design paints your bad implementation into a bad corner, and there it stays.

Here's how Lua and SpiderMonkey JavaScript stack up against each other. Lua TOTALLY smokes JavaScript, in every category, by a long shot. It's not even funny -- it's tragic. Face it: JavaScript is not only a horribly designed language, but SpiderMonkey is also a horrible implementation of that horribly designed language. So it's not surprise that SpiderMonkey has always had gaping security holes, to complement its horribly slow speed and extremely huge size.

Lua x times better than SpiderMonkey JavaScript
binary-trees: 2.9 x faster, 6.6 x smaller
cheap-concurrency: No SpiderMonkey
fannkuch: 3.8 x faster, 1.2 x smaller
fasta: 8.2 x faster, 13.9 x smaller
k-nucleotide: 3.7 x faster, 10.0 x smaller
n-body: 6.3 x faster, 77 x smaller
nsieve: 7.8 x faster, 2.0 x smaller
nsieve-bits: 2.3 x faster, 29 x smaller
partial-sums: 7.0 x faster, 80 x smaller
recursive: 2.9 x faster, n/a3
regex-dna: 1.9 x faster, 5.3 x smaller
reverse-complement: 8.0 x faster, 5.8 x smaller
spectral-norm: 6.2 x faster, 71 x smaller
startup: 1.2 x slower, 1.1 x smaller
sum-file 5.3 x faster, 21 x smaller

-Don

The trademark policy to require patches to be approved by Mozilla is a slowdown or a hurdle that could have been sorted out by for example streamlining the process. The logo issue cannot be sorted out without one side giving up a position they deem important.

I don't see the difference between the "Firefox" name trademark and the logo trademark. Both issues prevent users from freely modifying and redistributing the software, via trademark law.

Even Debian prevents other people from freely modifying their distros and keeping the Debian name

Actually, no.

The page you link to only states that you may make a CD of Debian and call it Debian. It doesn't cover modifications. People have already mentioned how Debian forced derivative distributions to not use Debian in their name. I don't see how this is any different than Mozilla's position.

Would you care to elaborate on this a bit please? I'm not familiar with this aspect of GPLv3.

GPL3 specifically allows for trademark restrictions that hinder users' rights. The wording mentions trademarks used for "publicity" purposes, but then how far does that extend? Does that include the name of the package? In any case, trademarks hinder freedoms in the current GPL2 environment (Mozilla and Red Hat obvious examples), and GPL3 doesn't resolve the situation. Here's the clause in the current draft:

[Additional requirements allowed by this License]: terms that prohibit or limit the use for publicity purposes of specified names of licensors or authors, or that require that certain specified trade names, trademarks, or service marks not be used for publicity purposes without express permission, other than in ways that are fair use under applicable trademark law

Even Debian don't seem to agree with that interpretation.

http://packages.debian.org/src:nvidia-graphics-mod ules-i386

"Why is the logo special?"

Debian can't freely make changes to Firefox without changing the name.

Even Debian prevents other people from freely modifying their distros and keeping the Debian name

What's weird is that the GPL3 encourages companies to use trademark poisoning to prevent the freedom to copy/modify.

The fact that I know that every security patch will hit my machine fast, usually within a day, is why I use Debian.
i beg to differ(the version of gaim in sarge-security is still the same version that was current when that bug was reported)

> The Debian project puts ideals and arguments over them ahead of the people who just want to use the software.

That is false. By making sure that all software in Debian is free, Debian puts the interest of people who just want to use *free* software ahead of anything else.

For some users, the hard-line approach regarding copyrights might be the best protection. I am thinking of companies and administrations who need to put in a severe compliance policy for all their free and open source software. Using Debian might well be the way for them: they would know not only that their stable is rock solid, but also that their code and licenses have been scrutinised with a zeal otherwise reserved to IBM's lawyers flaying SCO's and Slasdhot users cutting hairs in four lenghtwise.

The same goes for users/developers that care that they are really contributing to Free and Open Source Software, and not contributing to copyright infringement. I think it is unfair to say of Debian that they are making things difficult; it is the copyright establishment that is making things difficult. Debian are only following the law.

In the particular case of Firefox vs Debian, read the archived Firefox-logo-trademark bugzilla discussion, and you will see that this is a problem with Mozilla's need to defend their trademarks rather than with Debian. Mozilla used to give Debian a dispensation, and now they aren't doing that. Mozilla needs to protect their trademarks (I don't think they are the bad guys, the law forces them to defend their Firefox trademark just as it has forced Debian to defend theirs in the past), and that protection is incompatible with the DFSG. So goes it.

Unfortunately, you can't pick and choose the law. Neither can Debian, or Mozilla. But don't blame Debian for picking the compromise that you wouldn't have. It is pretty much a forced choice once you run yourself by the DFSG.

Finally, I read the discussion again yesterday, and there were a couple of proposals on the table that had not been answered yet. One by Mike Hommey involved using a non-copyrighted Firefox logo with the trademark owners' permission. THis might work with the added proviso (pointed out in another comment) that the DFSG, which doesn't allow coyright licenses specific to Debian, would however allow trademark permissions specific to Debian. As far as I see it, the conversation hasn't ended yet. The "rename Firefox" is the currently winning solution, but nobody has been uncivil or thrown the towel.

Of course, hedging a headline and stating that "Debian and Mozilla in discussions about misuse of the Firefox Trademark" is not as dramatic as "Firefox to be renamed", and would not have attracted as much conversation.

You need to lose the last slash in the GP's link:

http://www.debian.org/logos/officiallogo-100.jpg

This is not a political issue. Mozilla will sue Debian unless Debian changes the name of its Firefox package!

As for your SATA issues, I suggest that you do an iota of research before splashing out on new hardware. Making sure that hardware is capable of running the software you want to run on it is always a good idea; after all, the hardware only exists to run your chosen software--it should not dictate that choice itself.

If this is not possible then I suggest you try one of Kenshi Muto's Backported d-i images, or a backported kernel from backports.org.

Finally, next time you need help with Debian I suggest you use one of the known support channels. Off-topic bitching on an un-related internet forum just makes you look like you are trolling. :)

they want to change the name and icon?

Debian is losing the spirit of their rules here.

Firefox is really free.

They just want their fox and globe on their really free software.

Debian is just non-conformist.

now that firefox is popular, they don't like it any more.

that's what this is about.

they want to change the name and icon?

Debian is losing the spirit of their rules here.

Firefox is really free.

They just want their fox and globe on their really free software.

Debian is just non-conformist.

now that firefox is popular, they don't like it any more.

that's what this is about.

Surely "normal" people would just use Internet Explorer on Windows? :)

Debian can not do as you suggest because your solution ignores the problem's copyright dimension. All material in Debian must be available under DFSG-compatible terms. Debian can not use the Firefox logo because it is not licensed under such terms. The logo problem is purely a copyright issue. The trademark dimension does not come into it; even if the logo was not trademarked, the copyright issue prevents Debian from using it.

Where trademarks enter the picture is with the 'Firefox' name. mozilla.com says "thou shalt not use the name without the logo". Because Debian can not use the logo, they are also prevented from using the name.

Now, traditionally Debian has only cared about copyright issues. The Project's approach to patents and trademarks is to ignore potential violations until the patent/trademark owner presses the issue. I consider this sensible because Debian is a volunteer project with extremley limited resources. If the Debian Developers had to audit the packages that comprise Debian for alleged patent and trademark violations then there would be to time left over for them to actually get anything done! Now, since mozilla.com has pressed the issue, Debian has two options:

1. Use the Firefox logo (would require all current patches and future patches to be approved by mozilla.com)
2. Stop using the trademarked 'Firefox' name.

Option 1 is not acceptable because Debian can not use the non-DFSG-free logo. (The possibility that Mozilla may not approve patches necessary for Firefox to correctly function in the Debian operating system, and may delay (or prevent entirely) the release of security updates for the firefox package is irrelevant). Therefore, Debian chooses option 2.

What will be interesting is to see whether other distributions that have similar requirements (such as Fedora and Gentoo) are also forced to change the name of Firefox in their packages.

The whole idea of a official/unofficial combo (kind of like staroffice/openoffice.org) is being fought against tooth and nail by the mozilla foundation (and as this is slashdot)

How many recognice the official debian logo http://www.debian.org/logos/officiallogo-100.jpg/

Add some marketing people to the mix and it all falls into place pretty well.

The whole idea of a official/unofficial combo (kind of like staroffice/openoffice.org) is being fought against tooth and nail by the mozilla foundation (and as this is slashdot)

How many recognice the official debian logo http://www.debian.org/logos/officiallogo-100.jpg/

Add some marketing people to the mix and it all falls into place pretty well.

Debian is brain-damaged on this issue and either needs to change trademark law (oh, and while they're at it, fix patent law), or else cope with copyrighted logos.

It is not that simple an issue. One of Debian's best attributes is the fact that everything in Debian complies to the DFSG. This means that I don't have to bother reading the /usr/share/doc/$package/copyright file of every package I install; I know that I may freely modify and distribute everything.

I think it is in my best interest (as a user) that Debian alter its package so that mozilla.com can no longer prevent me from doing so; therefore rebranding the Firefox browser (or even renaming the package, if necessary) is in the best interest of the user.

There's been complaints for years and years at Mozilla over the dubious quality of some of the Debian patches, not to mention the very large amount of them (Debian users have a hard time getting support in the Mozilla IRC channels because there's a thousand and one new weird issues that are unique to Debian), and that's directly helped shape the policy that the trademarks can only be used with unaltered products, or with the alterations directly vetted.

There's been complaints for years and years at Mozilla over the dubious quality of some of the Debian patches, not to mention the very large amount of them (Debian users have a hard time getting support in the Mozilla IRC channels because there's a thousand and one new weird issues that are unique to Debian), and that's directly helped shape the policy that the trademarks can only be used with unaltered products, or with the alterations directly vetted.

What good is "open software" if I need three people with law degrees to figure out which of a number of mutually incompatibe documents governs what I'm about to do and what rules it stipulates?

It would seem that Debian recognizes that the use of trademarks is important to protecting the reputation of a project, and may even require approval in some cases. So why should they expect FireFox to be any different?

Once you've worked out all the political wrangling over the "Firefox" trademark, et all, could you please get decent SATA support in Stable?

The next release (Debian 4.0) is scheduled for December, and just might actually be close to on schedule, if you can hold out a couple more months. It currently uses kernel 2.6.17, though it's possible that 2.6.18 might be able to slip in before release. Needless to say, this will support a lot more SATA hardware than Debian 3.1 with kernel 2.6.8.

If you want to be an early adopter, try the etch beta 3 installer images. Alternatively, for Debian 3.1 with a more modern kernel, try the unofficial installer images produced by developer Kenshi Muto.

From TFA :

The Firefox logo is trademarked, so Debian doesn't consider it to be Free and will not include it as part of its distribution.

I believe that everything has been said here !

Aha! So that is why everyone is confused — because TFA got it wrong. (Perhaps Slashdot readers actually do RTFA!) The reason the logo is not Free is not because it is trademarked, but because it has a copyright license which prohibits derivative works. That means you cannot take the Firefox logo, pull it up in your favorite image editor, and turn it into something else — like a 16x16 grayscale icon, or putting a Superman costume on the fox, or turning it into a texture map for a game.

[Hmmm, come to think of it, the Superman costume is probably someone else's trademark, but that's not the point. (: ]

We take our user freedoms seriously. We need for you to be able to take anything on the source CD and produce your own creative works based on it. Most of what we ship is program source code, but there's nothing special about program code — we believe the same freedoms are equally important for PNG files.

There are lots of reasons you might want to modify a logo image in a way that doesn't violate MozCorp's trademark. Unfortunately, MozCorp doesn't allow it. That's certainly their choice, but the practical effect is that we can't ship the logo images and still keep our promise to our users about your right to make modifications to all the content in Debian.

For some reason Debian doesn't think this is a good plicy. Ok, if that is so, then why does Debian itself state that

"Debian" and the Debian Logo are trademarks of Software in the Public Interest, Inc.

I doubt Debian would like it if I came along, changed a bunch of apt source code, and re-relased it using their name and logo.

The Firefox logo/trademark is important. Firefox has 10%+ of browser share now. That wasn't very easy to get. [.....] The people of Debian are being stupid. The Firefox logo is an important logo and should be kept. Debian protects their trademark(s), why shouldn't Mozilla?

Isn't that exactly what's happening here? Debian's acknowledging that the Firefox trademark is protected, and therefore preparing to change the name in Debian. I'm sure there are people involved in Debian who'd like to keep the Firefox name, but unless it can be done within the terms of Debian's main goals, it's not going to happen.

That said, why should Debian be bending over backwards and sacrificing how it does things so a single package (out of thousands) can keep up its perceived market-share, as you seem to imply in your post? People such as yourself might care about Firefox's market-share, but this has nothing to do wiht Debian. Besides, who cares if Debian people are being stupid? It's their right to govern their distribution as they see fit, and if this bothers people outside, such as Firefox users who don't want to see their perceived market share diminish, then it's their problem more than Debian's.

I know it's not just you, but your post is an example of what seems to be a huge misunderstanding everywhere that the open source "community" is some kind of big organisation with common goals. It's not -- it's a vast collection of people who share and use each other's source code through the application of open source licenses. What people use it for and who uses it is up to the people involved. Personally I like this, and I prefer it hugely over proprietary vendors arguing with and paying millions of dollars to each other to decide who can see what, what works where, and how broken something will be when it's released. Trying to imply that there's a massive open source organisation, though, and that everyone has the unified goal of having OSS take over servers and desktops and whatever else it takes to get noticed, is ridiculous.

It's Firefox that's clamping on the restrictions here, and rightly so for their own interests since Firefox wants to associate its name with a level of quality that it has control over. Fair enough, but if the Debian developers decide that Firefox's interests are incompatible with their main distribution goals, they're completely within their rights to do this. Any "loss in perceived market-share" is entirely because the Firefox team hasn't done everything necessary to cater to what its users require.