Slashdot Mirror
Firebird Database Project Admin on Name Clash
CapnKirk writes "Ann Harrison weighs in on the "Firebird--database or browser?" name clash. Her take on things: our users feel threatened. We're responding to their concerns. AOL lawyers said it's ok, so the Mozilla team isn't interested in negotiating, but that's ok because we've gotten a lot of publicity and name recognition. And no, we don't plan on going to court." As always, a small group of users are being real asses about the whole thing. Yay.
I really don't understand why the ferocity of their defense of the "Firebird" name.
One is a database.
Another is a browser.
It's also a car.
Unless, like I read in another post... it's all about publicity to just get the "Firebird" name out there.
Ah well.
-brain
...both parties get some run and no one gets hurt.
More importantly, it will just make all the geek headlines messy. You'll see an update on freshmeat and have to double-check which product it is for.
Pontiac Firebird.
sulli
RTFJ.
C'mon, "Firebird"? Come up with something better, all of you!
Those database people should've never named their program the same thing as the browser
They should have never named it after the car and then expected that nobody would do the same to them.
Jason
ProfQuotes
And I've spent most of the last week responding to people who read about this on Slashdot and call me a spammer, a terrorist, and a sucker of moose balls.
Whose users are being asses again?
This reminds me of the disputes over domain names. Like whether Nissan motors vs Nissan computers has any more right to nissan.com than the other.
I believe in the first come first serve. Mozilla needs to find a new name.
"As always, a small group of users are being real asses about the whole thing. Yay."
- CmdrTaco, advocating the tyranny of the majority since 2003.
If ignorance is bliss, you must be quite happy. Many of us who actually develop against multiple databases for a living are actually familiar with Firebird the database. I think that the Mozilla people are doing a shitty thing and that they should back off and find another name. The people behind firebird have done some decent work, now why don't the rabid /.'s back off and show some respect for a solid open source project?
After reading the article I fail to see which aspect of the browser being called Firebird negatively hurts them? Maybe they just want to be the top hits in a search engine and are afraid that the browser Firebird might steal that glory? Maybe they should just call it 'Phirebird' since Phoenix starts with a PH anyways and then it wouldn't piss them off but it would probably piss someone else off. You just can't make everyone happy so why bother trying.
But why did mozilla team pickup the name firebird ? I am preety sure they knew about the firebird database.
So why firebird ? I mean why create a controversy even if it's legal.
For 's sake, how difficult is it to come up with a name . Why not just call it mozilla-lite ?
for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
I've always been a Mozilla advocate. Mozilla's support for Web standards, tied with its open development cycle, powered by the remarkable bugzilla system made it immediately appeal to me. The legendary competition with MSIE is also a significant factor.
But I've really lost faith in Mozilla since this Firebird naming issue came up. It's not that I feel some kind of cameraderie for the Firebird-db people, but out of my own selfishness. If Mozilla can appropriate the name of a prominent Open Source project's name, what's to stop it from doing so again? Perhaps my project is next on the chopping block? Backed with the lawyers of AOL, I have started to fear that the Mozilla project could come to threaten my Open Source project. Perhaps they'll chose to rename their IRC client next?
When users apt-get install firebird, should they get the browser or the database? The only thing the "Firebird" name change is going to achieve is the dangerous precedent for an environment which encourages the free-for-all name grab; I know Mozilla advocates have stuck to their guns in the past on important issues, but they really need to give up the "Firebird" name. Please direct your guns towards the people who break Web standards and perpetuate broken software, not fellow Open Source projects, especially not for something as trivial as a stupid name. Life's just too short.
I know we all hate trademark disputes, and obviously, this isn't one.... but the principle is the same.
It's this kind of thing that the concept of trademark was DESIGNED to deal with, exacty: 2 things in the same field with the same name.
Oh, but a browser isn't a database tool? Trademark law recognizes software as a class unto itself.
Just like if someone named their dump truck "firebird". Pontiac could have a fit... it's still a vehicle, even if the use case & market is different.
So... as a community, how do we solve the issue?
I found out about this name change earlier this morning as I was looking to change my Phoenix theme. I found that they have made the switch at the main theme site for Pho ... er ... Firebird here. When performing a search on the new name on Google, I found nothing about the Mozilla based browser, but I did find sites about a database I had never heard of before and my first car (1983 pontiac firebird). The results can be found here . Further investigation led me to the Mozilla homepage where the announcement is posted here. It seems that Phoenix Technologies (A BIOS manufacturer) has an embedded browser for some digital systems. Let's hope they don't have to change the name once again due to a few angry users who may become confused when they attempt to open their browser and a database opens instead.
dan
Now, I'd never heard of the Firebird database before this. However, from what I can tell their database is called Firebird. Just "Firebird", not FirebirdSQL as others have suggested. So both the database and browser are called exactly the same thing.
Also, while it's true they are two completely different applications, they are both software that you run on your computer. That's too close for comfort. What does "Are you using Firebird?" mean exactly (could be database, or it could mean the browser).
With that said, when you use something so obvious as Firebird for the name of your application, you damn well better get a trademark or something because you should just assume zillions of others will think of using the same name. This was a mistake the database people made, for sure.
So, I think the Phoenix group is probably legally safe, but the nice thing to do would be to pick another name. I know they don't want to do this because it means more lawyer fees and coming up with yet another name. I dunno... They don't have to do this and it doesn't look like they are. In which case if I were the Firebird database people then I would come up with another name and trademark it (as painful as that may be). It's not like it was a database being used by 100's of thousands of people and they will now all be confused by the name change.
The ratio of people to cake is too big
Since calling it Firebird is a recent change, why not just pick another name if it's becoming such a big deal? Any particular reason to stick with the name Firebird for Mozilla other than the fact it's already been publicized? If they're getting so much heat from it, I think they should just pick another name right now and end this.
Developers: We can use your help.
I'm not sure that "Mozillazine" is a place to get much decent coverage of the situation, but...
"Whining"... neither of us heard anybody's tone of voice, so this almost *has* to be projection. Perhaps what you really meant was that they didn't have a reasonable complaint? I can easily believe that they don't have a legally actionable complaint, but that doesn't keep the browser team from having exhibited very poor manners. Was it that they didn't bother to check that there was another project using the same name, or did they just not care?
When a corporation acts like this, I consider them a bad citizen, and usually consider boycotting their products. Since I wasn't using Phoenix anyway, this isn't going to have much effect. But being in a legally defensible position doesn't translate into being a decent group of people. And OSS project or not, I find myself quite dubious as to the ethical standards of those in charge of determining the name. OSS goes a long way, but it doesn't justify everything, and claim-jumping (the closest analogy I can come to) is one thing it doesn't justify.
If this turns out to be Mozilla rather than just Phoenix, well: "I've been wondering how one would hook a bayesian filter up to K-Mail, and I guess that I'll have a chance to find out. And thank you for having introduced me to Bayesian filters before turning to the dark side.", but for the moment I'm going to assume that it's only the Phoenix project that's involved. They're the only ones legally required to change their name.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Read the article. Think about it. They were using the name first for a software product. The Mozilla people should have done their homework. AOL's lawyers should have done their homework. Doing a quick google even points you to a whole heirarchy of sites devoted to the software ( Computers > Software > Databases > InterBase ).
...if some small, yet popular open-source project had its name stolen by a large, monolithic software company's product that we'd be all over the larger company's ass about this?
I appreciate both teams. Mozilla was the little gecko engine that could, that never gave up and eventually plodded to stability. Mozilla is one of the most successful open source projects today and a major bastion against a microsoft-locked internet.
FirebirdSQL was born from Borland's utter mismanagement of Interbase. The only reason they didn't kill the product outright is because of the great user community. Only a determined and personally involved user community has salvaged the interbase code from years of neglect to a very respectable open source database system. Firebird
is the leading developer of the interbase code today, eclipsing borland's own efforts in many areas. It is every bit as competitive a system as mysql and postgresql.
Both products clearly deserve respect and admiration. Anyone who disparages the core accomplishments of either group would be hard pressed to do better.
This makes the current scandal all the more sad. I think everyone who has ever seen a news group or a major mailing list understands the need for good etiquette on the net.
Regardless of the legal issues, it is bad etiquette for the mozilla folks to rename phoenix firebird. Of course the Mozilla folks *can* use phoenix, but it's not very nice. There's plenty of name space for everyone.. Be a good neighbor and pick a non-conflicting name. This is social skills 101, a total no-brainer- Don't alienate people for no good reason.
The Firebird (SQL) users should publicly appologize for advocating such guerilla protest tactics. I saddens me that many people's first impression of this great project will be formed from the emotional rantings of a minority. Do protest publicly, but do so with logic and reason.
I hope this all blows over quickly.
This little dust-up makes me think of the clashes we're always reading about: Microsoft v. Oracle, HP v. Dell, and so on. Slashdot readers are continually ridiculing large corporations for their seemingly stupid behavior.
Yet here we have a perfect example of how even a small group of people can do stupid things. Corporations are just collections of people, with their own ideas, egos and goals.
The next time you want to shout at Google for becoming "The Man" just remember that getting even a small group of people to act with grace and common sense can be extremely difficult.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
The Browser Formerly Known As...?
I'm still in the process of reading The Cathedral and the Bazaar, more specifically the chapter Homesteading the Noosphere and it seems very applicable to this. The "hacker ethic" would seem to dictate that two open source projects shouldn't share the same namespace. It's not quite the same as forking a project or removing a contributor's name from a project, but given the gift culture of open source, it does dilute (the work made by contributors of) both gifts/projects.
I can see Ann Harrison making that point without actually quoting a not-quite-codified rule. The fact that there is such an uproar over indicates a schizm in the hacker community and possibly the whole hacker ethos.
I like how Ann helps point out that divide by making it a virtual David vs. Goliath between the enthusiast developers and AOL.
To most everyone out there, a database and a browser aren't that much different, they are both just "computer programs." While a mechanic could probably say a car and truck are vastly different doesn't mean that's how everyone sees it.
Yes, but they ARE vastly different computer programs. Your comparison of a car & a truck would be like comparing a small web browser to a large web browser; they both do the same thing, in the same space. To make your comparison more apt, you'd have to compare the firebird sports car to a jumbo jet. That's much closer to how different the phoenix browser is from the phoenix database.
I don't think I agree with you fooling your mother into using Mozilla just because you like it better than IE. Let the end user choose. What happens when she goes to WindowsUpdate with her tricked out Mozila and it doesn't work? What happens when she goes to a site that says "This site requires Internet Explorer' and the site doesn't render properly?
Beware, Nugget is watching... See?
I'm going to jump on this bandwagon.
Firebird is an excellent mature database that has continually improved since the project formed a few years ago,and is worth considering any time you want support for stored procedures, triggers, and transactions like PostgreSQL, or the ability to deploy on both Linux and Windows like mySQL.
Mozilla is a great project with much more visibility than Firebird. It would be nice if the Mozilla team could spend a little extra time to come up with a name that isn't already being used by an open source project. How hard could that be?
This is going to be more and more of a problem as time goes on, just because there's a limited supply of desirable and pronouncable names. Plus, the names that are registered trademarks keep getting deleted from the permissible set of assigned names.
If cars and pharmaceuticals are any indication, software should start to use generated names that are still suggestive of desirable traits.
From what I understand, big money is paid to come up with names like Viagra.
To give you an idea of all the pitfalls. I recall hearing that the Chevrolet Nova was less than a hot selling vehicle in the Hispanic market because "no va" means, well, "no go", not exactly the best name for your next car.
Pretty soon the only names left are going to be a.out and install.exe .
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Both, although from what I've seen it has mostly been the Firebird DB enthusiasts acting like asses and spurning logic. That's not to say the Mozilla Firebird fans haven't been acting like asses, of course. They just haven't been doing it as loudly in the places I've been watching the 'debate' (mostly the Mozillazine forums).
The whole thing seems like a huge non-issue to me. Plenty of open source projects with the same name have managed to live together in the past, even where one of them is from an open source Goliath. I use JasperReports on top of Apache's Jasper JSP engine, and considered using the Jasper image libraries to generate images for my reports. Did this confuse me? No. Did it confuse me when I searched for documentation on Google? No, because I'm capable of using it. And perhaps I've just missed it, but I don't remember any vehement flame wars about the shared name.
Another name which has been shared peacefully in the past is Firebird. When the Firebird DB project grabbed the name, which had already been associated with, among other things, BBS software, I don't believe there was a great wailing and gnashing of teeth. The users and developers of the various previous Firebird applications were happy enough to go on with the same name.
At the end of the day, Firebird is a common word. It has Phoenix associations, which makes it an obvious name for any project rising from the ashes of another. It's the name of a car. It's the name of a software house from the 8-bit days. It's found in dictionaries: Websters lists it as a common name for the Baltimore Oriole, and WordNet adds two other species of bird. The reason the AOL legal department agreed to the name, and one of the reasons the Firebird DB team don't want a court case, is that they don't have a leg to stand on. As Ann Harrison points out, trademarks have to be defended. Firebird the DB has shared that name with more than enough other pieces of software to make it clear that they weren't interested in defending that trademark.
At the end of the day, it's a done deal. AOL have put time and money into ensuring they have a name that works from a legal standpoint. They aren't going to throw more money at the problem just to soothe some egos. For better or for worse, the name has been selected and will be sticking - and it's time for people on both sides to make the most of it, whether they like it or not.
++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
At the moment, if you go to Google, type in "Firebird" and click the "I'm Feeling Lucky" button.
Currently the Firebird database page is displayed (http://firebird.sourceforge.net/)
If in the future I type in "Firebird", click the "I'm Feeling Lucky" button and a Mozilla
page is displayed, then they have done a major disservice to another open source project.
By making it harder to find information about the Firebird DB, they will have eaten into its
potential client base.
http://jesus.everdense.com/
You are right in many of the particulars of the case, while, I think, being somewhat wrong in your conclusions.
First of all, they started calling their system software releases 'MacOS Number' at MacOS 8. The moniker had been used before then; though 7 was still officially 'System 7', a lot of people referred to it as MacOS 7 or 7.5 or whatever, because 'System 7' couldn't be used unless you had a context... it's too broad. Likewise it's not patentable.
Second, the Macintosh operating systems after 7.x were always called, not Mac OS9, but 'MacOS 9'. The dramatic majority of sites, based on a little check I just did via Google, do indeed call it that way. In fact, if you run a search for the following on Google, the top 8 sites you get are sites that talk about the OS-9 operating system, not the Macintosh in any way, shape, or form.
"OS 9" "OS9" -"MacOS 9" -"Mac OS9"
So, the pages that talk about OS-9 are, by and large, pages that talk about OS-9. In fact, I, as a Mac programmer and sysadmin, have very rarely heard of people calling MacOS 9 'OS-9'... I can't think of a single instance. When people are talking about it without bringing up the Mac beforehand, it's always 'MacOS 9'... when you're already talking about the Mac, it's almost *invariably* just 'nine'. As in, "Well, it runs under ten just fine, but it just crashes to the desktop when you try to run it on nine. I even tried it on nine-two-two.'
Ultrascience did indeed sell OS-9 for 68000-based Macintoshes. However, by the time MacOS 9 came out, Ultrascience had discontinued their product quite a long time hence, so there was no danger of their being harmed.
Finally, I have not read the decision, but as I understand it the judge didn't have to claim that there would be no confusion. What he needed to claim was that that Apple's trademark was sufficiently different from OS-9 that such confusion was unlikely to occur, OR that the two products were in sufficiently different categories that they did not compete with one another.
Personally, I would have to say that anyone who needed OS-9 would be able to understand the difference between the two, and that therefore the judge was absolutely correct. Especially since OS-9 was treading on pretty thin ground as it was... it is hard to see how 'OS-9' was defensible, in a lot of ways. It is, and was, a generic industry term IN THE INDUSTRY IN WHICH IT IS REGISTERED, followed by a number that sounds very much like a version number. It would be kind of like me suggesting that I should be able to make 'OS/2' a trademark... oh... wait... uh, a better example might be 'DB/2'... oh, no... uh...
It's just dumb. It's like... say you open a restaurant called 'Sam's BBQ'. It's popular, and you open another one across town called 'Sam's BBQ 2' Only you find out that someone else has a trademark on 'BBQ-2'. Taking a common and accepted generic term and adding a number to it is a questionable way to create a trademark. At best.
-fred
Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.
Having 2 open source projects with the same name WILL be confusing. "No harm done" is simply not true (imagine if this happened to YOUR open source project--publicity for a week, then confusion forever afterwards).
/firebird
For example, "Firebird" can be used as:
1. Google search term
NOTE: every web page won't contain the word
"browser" or "dbms" (i.e. page 2+ of articles)
when they happen to contain "Firebird"
2. firebird.sourceforge.net
3. firebird.
3.
Disclaimer: I'm not affiliated with Firebird in any way. I happen to use PostgreSQL for my free DBMS needs. I just think it is highly irresponsible of the browser team to do this especially AFTER the previous naming conflict. Why should a different project be penalized for the irresponsibility of another project?
I find this whole episode extraordinary. AOL has no reason to use "Firebird". The name has been in use for so short a time virtually nobody has ever heard of it who has heard of Phoenix. The name is already in use. AOL and the Mozilla team are not only wrong to refuse to consider a name change, but also in their initial refusal to speak to the IBPhoenix people, even after acknowledging the clash.
I've never used Firebird, until this I'd never even heard of it. But these actions are so off the wall, so intragently unjustifiable and so remarkably anti-cooperation that I have no intention of using either Mozilla, Phoenix, or Netscape until they resolve this issue. And, as someone who maintains a substantial webapp relying heavily on Javascript and CSS, I say tough titties if Mozilla users are locked out because of something we haven't tested in Gecko-based environments. If they don't want to play by the rules of fair play and mutual cooperation, I don't intend to either.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Two thoughts:
1. FirebirdSQL uses the name "firebird" for their project at sourceforge.net, so what will Mozilla Firebird use.(so far their are still using phoenix)
2. As Ann says, there is no problem with them using Mozilla Firebird. Why can't the Mozilla Project say we will never shorten the name to "Firebird", as they initially said they would. That way the only confusion would be had during casual conversations.
They can still use "Mozilla Firebird" and "Firebird Browser" name perfectly legally, so why don't the people at Mozilla do the upstanding thing and stop blocking on the issue, and just end the issue (I am very positive that Ann would be very happy with that solution). The Open source community shouldn't have to resort to Redmondesque legal tactics to resolve squabbles.
Sig Nazi- "No Sig for you, come back 1 year."
... the freeking thing. I've been waiting for the next stable release to switch to it full time. It's always "any day now".
:)
Yes, I hope they change the name, but I'll take it however I can get it.
However, Mozilla itsef has already inspired several derivated names, such as Chatzilla (IRC), Bugzilla and Crockzilla. So, keep the tradition and rename Phoenix to Browzilla. Everybody will understand that it is a browser and it's a part of Mozilla project.
Same way, call Mail application as Mailzilla. And don't forget about Addrezilla, Linkzilla and Compozilla.
Less is more !
There are other reasons to "fool" a non-technical user into using Mozilla rather than IE, besides the "just because" reason. Like the fact that even in the most up-to-date versions of IE there dozens of possibly horrible exploits where simply navigating to the wrong web page could get your computer taken over, or your hard drive wiped (vis-a-vis the very recent huge hole in Microsoft's proprietary Java VM). Or are we supposed to let the ignorant user "choose" to run every executable e-mail attachment and do other dumb, dangerous things, just for the fun of it?
Second point, how many users do you think are going to be visiting WindowsUpdate when they can't even tell the difference between Mozilla and IE? The mother would be highly unlikely to do such a thing at all, and most certainly not without assistance from the son. So "fooling" this person into using a more secure web browser does no real harm and helps keep her from damaging her computer inadvertently. On top of that, I've seen very few web sites lately that ever say they only support IE. Even if they do, they almost invariably work just fine with Mozilla now.
I can't believe you got modded up for such a knee-jerk, non-thinking whine.