Mozilla's Joy Of Naming

An anonymous reader writes "Thought the Firebird naming conflict was over? Think again! (If you thought, "What naming conflict?", go to the back of the class and read Slashdot's, previous coverage.) MozillaZine has got an exclusive interview with Christopher Blizzard, mozilla.org staff member, Red Hat employee and author of the Mozilla branding strategy. It's one the first official statements from mozilla.org (Mitchell Baker published a letter that she sent to the Firebird database project admins a few days ago). As well as the interview, MozillaZine also takes a look at some of the more recent media coverage of the conflict, which is overwealmingly biased in favour of the Firebird database project (who still haven't adequately explained how it was different when they picked the same name as the older Firebird BBS). Compare and contrast with MozillaZine's interview of Ann Harrison of the Firebird database project."

Comments

Cheese and rice

[Anonymous Coward]

God it's disgusting how far we've devolved into this stupid little legalistic society where everybody is suing everybody else for the dumbest reasons. Oh yeah, like I'm going to confuse a Web browser with some old crappy database that nobody ever uses or an ugly-looking monstrosity Pontiac targeted at middle-aged bald men who want a car that "looks fast." Hello. It's just a name. Who cares?

You know, if people would put as much effort into technological innovation and development as they do into suing each other, who knows how far along technology might be right now? We're far too infatuated with lawsuits and lawyers and multi-million dollar settlements and not focused on actually making things work. Sad, really.

Re:Cheese and rice

[Some Dumbass...]

It's a win-win situation for those in power (government), and for the successful backstabbers as well, and of course for the lawyers. But what about those who just want to live their lives in peace, achieving through honest means, accepting total responsibility for themselves -- and ONLY themselves? We're screwed.

Yes, but without that government keeping the backstabbers in check, you'd be ever more screwed. All this stuff about "personal responsibility" sounds great until you realize that "backstabbers" are going to ignore it. That's one of the basic flaws in these Libertarian arguments. I'd rather not go back to the days where any food or medicine I buy could easily be tainted or ineffective (while lining some backstabber's pockets), thank you very much.

Another basic flaw is that nobody lives in a vacuum. As my example suggests, we need to be able to depend on other people for certain things. If nothing else, people need other people (e.g. doctors) to be responsible for _them_ sometimes. Yet presumably that "responsible only for one's self" law applies to everyone equally. Needless to say, the Libertarian system is flawed at a basic logical level, unless allowing society to devolve to sub-caveman levels is acceptable.

What it boils down to is this. If you literally get rid of all the government control over peoples' lives, that's called anarchy. That system won't work, as I've argued above. That's "literal" Libertarianism, and it is a fatally flawed system.

A more "practical" Libertarian presumably just wants some specific laws to go away, rather than the whole system of government. I assume that most of them are in this category, whether or not they admit it. The funny thing is, these laws are presumably designed to help someone (can you imagine a law which literally helps nobody?) Thus, despite the beautific "everyone living in peace" talk, Libertarians are actually trying to backstab someone. They are trying to eliminate laws which help others for their own benefit. Why don't they just be honest about that? Why not just admit what exactly they want, so that we can discuss the costs and benefits of those particular changes?

See, that's the problem I have with "practical" Libertarianism. It's a very, very vague philosophy. Yes, people want less laws, but which ones? Not all of them, of course! So which? The discussion rarely seems to get past that point, most likely because the Libertarian ends up sounding bad.

Let google decide!

[girish]

I think they should just let google decide:

Searched the web for firebird +database. Results 1 - 10 of about 35,000. Search took 0.06 seconds.

Searched the web for firebird +mozilla. Results 1 - 10 of about 9,380. Search took 0.11 seconds.

Re:Let google decide!

[Anonymous Coward]

To be a /little/ more fair....

firebird +browser

Results 1 - 10 of about 17,600. Search took 0.04 seconds.

Re:Let google decide!

[Anonymous Coward]

Or even better...

firebird +firebirdsql
(firebirdsql is the foundation name organizing firebird)

Results 1 - 10 of about 867. Search took 0.16 seconds.

An idea

[Kyn]

Why doesn't Mozilla just codename it Project Trogdor? Yeah, it's more dragon-y than phoenix-y, but it's also hella cool.

And I'm doubting that the Brothers Chaps would say no if the Mozilla people asked them nicely. More publicity both ways.

"And all was laid to burnination..."

Cats or Cars?

[ink]

Seeing that the Chimera project (Mozilla/Cocoa for OSX) had to change it's name to "Camino"; I would hazzard a guess that the Mozilla team is targeting gas-guzzling sports cars for new monikers, rather than fowl. Maybe they should name the next version of Mozilla Corvette?

Re:How ridiculous is this

[dpete4552]

First they choose the name Phoenix, which is kind of an inside joke if you know what a Phoenix is. That unexpectedly gets challenged legitimately by the Phoenix BIOS folks (as they were implimenting a BROWSER with the same name, obviously there would be confusion). So they change it to Firebird, something that is currently being used by countless other products, including those that were started before FirebirdSQL was created (e.g. FirebirdBBS). Since it is related to the Phoenix name, they choose that. Not being particularly picky as it is just the codename for the browser component, which will not even be widely used after it is integrated into the main product (as Seamonkey is not). Because the FirebirdSQL developers decided to exploit an opportunity for free publicity that is an indication that Mozilla is 'rapidly deteriorating into a farce"? I don't think I see the logic in that conclusion.

How's this for an adequate explanation?

[wuice]

When the Firebird database chose the name for its project, the people from the similarly named Firebird BBS did not complain or object.

When the Firebird browser project took its name, people from the Firebird database project did complain. Argue the case either way, but that is the difference. It's not rocket science.

one word: bugzilla

[Vitriolix]

there needs to be clear distinctions in bugzilla between the current mozilla browser and the future Mozilla Browser... hence the name Firebird (equevielent to Seamonkey now)

Shame

[.com b4 .storm]

I have lost a lot of respect for the Mozilla leadership because of this dispute. The database folks had the name first, and it's not as if picking another name will cause "branding" issues... 99% of users don't call it "Mozilla Firebird" and so nobody will care if another name is picked. It's not like Mozilla.org invested in a million-dollar ad campaign with the name Firebird.

The mature thing to do would be for the Mozilla folks to back off, and pick another name. The legalities of it are largely irrelevant - this kind of dispute is bad for the community, and it reflects very poorly on all involved with the Mozilla side of things. These guys are making some abusive corporations look nice and friendly right now, and it disgusts me.

Browsers named after Cars

[Anonymous Coward]

Everybody knows that browsers are named after cars.
Explorer = Ford Explorer
Navigator = Lincoln Navigator
Safari = GMC Safari
Or maybe it's the other way around.

Re:BIOS Company more important than OS Community?

[(H)elix1]

First Mozilla.org changed the name from Phoenix to Firebird because Phoenix BIOS was annoyed (afraid someone could mistakenly buy a web browser instead of a BIOS chip).

Now, they realized that the name was already in use by another open source project but they have no intention to get back.

Phoenix BIOS actually created a web browser - thus, Phoenix Browser was a legitimate gripe by the Phoenix BIOS folks. There would have been confusion, followed by a lawsuit that Mozilla would lose.

Firebird was used by an open source DB project. While there was no legal issues - IE, no trademark dilution of the Firebird Database product, in spirit it was wrong to snag the name. When people talk of the open source 'firebird' project, their may be confusion. One of the hazards of using common words like windo ^H^H^H ^H (nah, not today) to describe your product.

Anyhow, what does it mean to me? Branding strategy? Meeting the minimum legal requirements? Put a sock in it. I've invested time debugging issues and just using the browser formally known as phoenix as it developed. I don't condone that attitude however, and I won't promote it or be attached to it in the future. I suspect it left a bad taste with others as well...

I just don't get this

[CleverNickName]

Okay.

I still don't understand this.

Why is this such a big deal? There can't be a browser and a database with the same name?

Is this some sort of intellectual property argument? Doesn't this sort of go against the "spirit" of the OS community?