Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla Cracks Down On Merchandise Sellers
An anonymous reader writes "MozillaZine reports that the Mozilla Foundation is cracking down on those selling unofficial Mozilla-branded merchandise. This takes the form of an open letter addressed to retailers of goods that bear the Mozilla name or logos. The letter suggests that the Foundation are willing to work with those selling Mozilla wares, as long as they get a cut and the retailer isn't operating in the US, Canada or Mexico, where they would be competing with the Foundation's own Mozilla Store. Threats of legal action for non-compliance are issued, albeit with friendly overtones. This open letter is part of the Mozilla Foundation's campaign to better enforce its trademarks, an effort that began when the Foundation was launched in July. In a related move, the Foundation announced that the new Firefox artwork is not open-source and can only be used in official builds or those sanctioned by the Foundation - this has led to debates about whether Firefox is free enough to be included in the Debian Linux distribution."
Just keep changing the name every month. No one will want to produce bootleg merchandise.
Isn't Mozilla a generic name used in all headers for web browsers? I'm pretty sure IE6 uses the word "Mozilla" in it's information headers...
What are they trying to do? Copyright a generic name?
I know I'm missing something, but shouldn't they be encouraging this form of free-adversiting?
This article would get an Ironic tag.
This, like the GFDL, is one of those aspects of some aspects of the OSS movement that doesn't seem to really follow the tenets of the whole OSS movement.
I have been pwned because my
Free as in advertising?
At the sound of the tone free software will have officially "sold out".
Damn this dragon! its only producing one egg a day! lets cut it open and harvest a lifetimes worth of eggs!!!
Problem solved.
if slashdot uses the logo (next to the headline) ?
Error: Id10t detected
what next, "Just install it"? and a nifty electronry swish? (Hey, the Fire Fox is halfway there)
I don't think so. Really just Netscape uses it because it's derived from Mozilla... Konqueror (and maybe Safari) *can* identify as Mozilla but you can have Konqueror identify as whatever the hell you want it to.
More power to them I say. Free Software shouldn't be equated with the right to brazenly steal from those who provide it.
The trademark for Mozilla may have already slipped since it's become commonly used. That's not to say they still don't have "Mozilla Firefox," "Mozilla Browser," etc.
Mozilla has a store? Well I wouldn'tve bought my "I downloaded the best damn browser on the next and all I got was this lousy mousepad" mousepad had I known THAT...
Just on the trademark thing, I think because of obvious reasons, the Mozilla icon in Japan is a fat "mo" in hiragana. I thought I'd point it out because it seems ironic that it's not Touhou (big japanese media company that distributes most of movies, good anime, and more importantly the Godzilla series) isn't doing the rademark legal actions...
(I mean, I am all for Moz, but the irony is unignorable)
My life in the land of the rising sun.
How is an open letter 'cracking down'? Talk about biased reporting...
Either you believe in freedom or you don't, right? Wrong! These bootleggers are (presumably) profiting off the work of the Mozilla collective, without contributing anything back. That goes against the spirit and the letter of the project. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
the Foundation announced that the new Firefox artwork is not open-source and can only be used in official builds or those sanctioned by the Foundation - this has led to debates about whether Firefox is free enough to be included in the Debian Linux distribution."
Will the Debian Linux distribution refuse all Open Source Software that also says, "you can re-compile this software, and even add your own modifications, but you can't represent your own compilations or modifications as official builds"?
Because that's all that reserving the artwork does: the artwork is an imprimatur, a symbol essentially equivalent to a signature, that identifies a build as official.
I've made some of my code open source, but I've never said that people could remove my name from the copyright, or conversely, put my name on their own work. If my signature were a Chinese ideogram, or a picture of fox wrapped around a globe, I wouldn't let anyone else use that.
If the Debian Foundation decides that Firefox isn't "free enough", can I produce my own Linux distribution and call it "Debian Linux"?
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
Yes, IE does reference Mozilla in its "User-Agent" header, but no, it is not generic; it is still refering to the Mozilla foundation (or a Netscape standard of somekind, anyway). Even if it was generic, there is still the matter of the logo; that is certainly not generic.
Threats of legal action for non-compliance are issued, albeit with friendly overtones.
/.
Funny, you'll never see a qualifier like that in an MS or SCO article... ooops, forgot I was reading
As of late, it seems 'free' is being removed from 'free software'. What do we have, mySQL, X...They're both being contested as free software/GPL-compatible. Now Mozilla is being bitch over some pretty pictures? Honestly.
The Yasashii Syndicate ||
They have to defend the Mozilla trademark, I'm sure the lawyers told them to cover their ass and do it already, so they did it. It doesn't seem any more complicated than that.
... software should be free to be downloaded by the masses. go forth and download all the Open Stuff you want. BUT don't you dare use our pictures or graphics, or we'll sue.
Seriously, all this litigation, threats of lawsuits, license clauses in software, logos and so on - it's starting to make "Open" look a heck of a lot more like "Closed" to me; imagine what it looks like to the Clueless Observer.
Hey! Don't rip off our Godzilla rip-off!
Wait! They are trademarking the logo for firefox? If they were smart they would hold some type of a compatition for a new logo as the current one is ugly as sin.
I totally agree. Of course, it shouldn't be unexpected. This is what happens when Large Corporations get involved with OSS projects. Lets face it, they're out to make money. When they see a possible revenue source is in jeopardy, they will bare their claws no matter what the idealogical costs are.
Freudian slip?
I was wondering why they want a part of the cut a long as they are geting 'Free' advertising in other countries besides US & Canada. ;-)
Then it struck me that they are saving up and trying to gather moolah for future lawsuits(who sues whom, dun ask me!)
Does that mean I have to chuck my Mozilla T shirt i drew up, complete with a TM attatched?
Lord of the Binges.
Bootleggers will make money on nostalgia merch if Zilla keeps changing names, anyway. Protecting old/unused trademarks still is required, imho.
Wouldn't that unofficial merchandise help to spread the word about Mozilla?
I mean, the foundation could use the publicity among non-tech people wearing the logo.
It used to be that the mozilla artwork could be used pretty freely when netscape was still a product, but alas, not anymore. I think mozilla.org, should release soem BSD or trilicense artwork for unofficial stuff.
Personally I can't really see how the artwork should fall under open source. They're binary files, right?
This is purely a branding issue, it has nothing to do with the underlying program. They want to be able to make some money off of merchandise that they will hopefully invest in bettering their technology. How is this a bad thing?
I found it funny that the original poster felt it necessary to add "albeit with friendly overtones". I guess this was an attempt to ward off the knee-jerk reactions? Really, I wouldn't see the problem if they were rude about it, they have a right to protect their name and logo.
I guess what's good enough for SCO...Come on in. The water's fine. I sure wish I could remember who made the comment about peeing in your own pool.
What?
Users of Mozilla Firefox are (presumably) profiting off the work of the Mozilla collective, without contributing anything back. That goes against the spirit and the letter of the project.
You're either with us or against us, right, comrade?
"You should never doubt what nobody is sure about." -- Willy Wonka
Foreign Kid: "Daddy, I want a Mozilla Doll for christmas."
Father: *sigh* "You know, when I was your age..."
With the moo and the cow and the fish. Minesweeper Record: 7 sec
I guess it is fair to put a stop to such brand dilution. No matter how free a product is, it is still important to maintain its identity based on some standards/rules. Without such control, the brand/goodwill will eventually become less valuable.
Some might argue if you're doing something for free, why do you want to protect your branding. Well, branding is what consumers look for in making a decision (most of the time), and if a company can maintain a strong branding, it is able to continue pushing its mission/objective using the same brand, and consumers will continue to use products based on that mission/objective.
If Sun didn't control the use of naming of Java, we might have too many different version of *Java*, and eventually consumers couldn't find one to stick to and the standard might be lost.
Imagine if people start printing Slashdot logo all over all kind of vibrators...
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
Correct me if i'm wrong, i'm too lazy to do research... .jar (or whatever they are) is created, a simple script could update the latest FireFox build to be included in a "free" distro.
Isn't all the artwork in the chrome themes? Even the default?
So why not replace the default theme with a "free" theme?
Or would that substitution somehow break the license?
Yeah, it'd mean it couldn't be directly included, but once the theme
Hell, if it's really that simple, I'll learn how to make themes and make a "free" (beer+libre) theme and a script to replace the default with it prior to distribution.
Of course, there is the issue of the icon on win32, but that's neither here nor there.
DONT PANIC
Why not allow cuts from competitors in the US, Mexico, and Canada? That makes absolutely no sense, as chances are they aren't going to be selling exactly the same stuff as the Mozilla Store is selling and are going to be different, and what people might like better to spread the word about Mozilla. I don't blame them for asking for cuts however...
True freedom will also empower people with the ability to abuse that freedom (unfortunately). Just because people are profiting off the hard work of others doesn't mean that the OSS ideal of freedom is wrong.
The better course of action for Mozilla (in the spirit of freedom) would have been to send an open letter to consumers notifying them of unofficial resalers and politly asking them to suppport the Mozilla Foundation rather than imposters with their money.
IF you are into standards and having a uniform webpage in both Mozilla and IE, then you absolutely can't miss Mozie 0.7. It's amazing comparer which supports synchronous websurfing into panels and includes synchronized scrolling... all from the power of an HTA. PS, it's free (hence the plug).
It's in the mozillazine.org news page.
---- The geek shall inherit the Earth.
When I first read about the trademark on the Firefox logo, and the plan that if you see that logo you know it's a quality build, I just assumed that mozilla.org had thought it through completely.
Looks like I was wrong.
Debian asked about how the logo works, and from the mozilla.org answers, it appears there is no fallback plan yet! They don't have an alternate logo available. Worse, you can't even call a modified version "Firefox" anymore? That's a problem!
Given the mozilla.org plans for trademarks, I really don't think Debian can build with the official logo and the official name. That's a shame.
If mozilla.org lets Debian use the name and logo, Debian will build Firefox for about a dozen different architectures (Power PC, 68000, Alpha, etc.) and mozilla.org won't have to do it. mozilla.org would be crazy to keep this from happening.
I suggest a compromise plan: allow the artwork and the name for any version of Firefox, but add an official "seal" logo to the about: dialog, and add "official build" to the name in several places.
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Debian can not distribute things that are non-free. period. It's in the constitution, in the social contract, etc. GFDL = non-free. simple. mozilla-firefox logo = non-free. one of the problems is the Name Mozilla and the Name Firefox are seemingly non-free, too. If there was a trademark encumberance only, ok. But the problem with the names is that the encumberance are in the Copyright Licensing, which is inacceptable. So to distribute the Browser Mozilla, or the Browser Firefox, in the current terms, Debian would have to call them other names and not use the logos.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
The Mozilla store features one lousy t-shirt. One!!! Who's going to help me with my Mozilla coffee (www.rjtarpleys.com) addiction? They give proceeds to the Mozilla Foundation, but they aren't included in the Mozilla store, and they operate out of the US.
Live free or die
I bought a "Mozilla CD Subscription" when it first came out... but I only ever received the first CD (v1.5)? Anyone else has similar problem? My email about the problem didn't get a reply from the store, any suggestion on what I can do?
One could offer value-added services for a GNU/Linux distribution that they have invested no time in, or burn Debian CDs and sell them for a profit, use the Linux kernel to build evil devices for one's own sadistic pleasure (within the bounds of the law). That's what it is to be free! When something becomes truely free, those kinds of restrictions are nullified. So, if I release music for free (and I have), you have the right to brazenly sell them in your business for a profit and give nothing back to me.
Those are the costs of freedom. Live with it or don't. But don't pretend to support OSS when you aren't willing to suffer the cost.
Perhaps something that lets other people use the a trademark in most cases, so long as the guy using it doesn't use it in ways that invalidate the trademark..
Linux...Free as in DUMB
The first patentable business method on slashdot:
1. Write kick-a$!$# software
2. Give away core product(s)
3. Develop strong trademark
4. Profit!!
Seriosly, this is a good move for Mozilla; trademarks themselves are valuable, properly nurtured. The Mozilla foundation and the Mozilla's users would certainly like to be able to build value without ever having to sell its core product.
One of the guys on the mozillazine forums who does nightly builds of Firefox is pushing for an official unofficial set of artwork that everyone can use for their builds: http://scragz.com/tech/mozilla/firefox-unofficial- branding.php
... but does someone have a vectorized (SVG) Mozilla logo ?
Looks like the purported dot-com model, except with the last line changed:
Perhaps a charity, which reinvests earnings back into operations, can pull off this sort of business model more easily than a for-profit corporation.
It is official; Netcraft confirms: Mozilla is dying
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered Mozilla community when IDC confirmed that Mozilla market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all web browsers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that Mozilla has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Mozilla is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict Mozilla's future. The hand writing is on the wall: Mozilla faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Mozilla because Mozilla is dying. Things are looking very bad for Mozilla. As many of us are already aware, Mozilla continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
Netscape 7 is the most endangered of them all, having lost 100% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant firing of all 50 Netscape developers by AOL only serves to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: Mozilla is dying.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
Mozilla.org leader Mitchell Baker states that there are 7000 users of Mozilla. How many users of Firebird are there? Let's see. The number of Mozilla versus Firebird posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 Firebird users. Camino posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of Firebird posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of Camino. A recent article put Netscape 7 at about 80 percent of the Mozilla market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 Netscape 7 users. This is consistent with the number of Netscape 7 usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Mozilla, abysmal sales and so on, Netscape went out of business and will probably be taken over by AOL who sell another troubled browser. Now AOL is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that Mozilla has steadily declined in market share. Mozilla is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Mozilla is to survive at all it will be among browser dilettante dabblers. Mozilla continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Mozilla is dead.
Fact: Mozilla is dying
I applaud the Mozilla project on many levels...but is there really that much revenue from "merchandizing" that they need to do this?
I say, leave the "pirates" in place for adveritizing purposes and concentrate on getting grants and corporate sponsorship!
-psy
The only thing Mozilla has is its brand. If it doesn't protect the brand, it can't control the quality of the product. It doesn't want others claiming to represent Mozilla through the use of its brand, nor does it want consumers to go to others when there are problems with Mozilla. I believe trademarks are the most important aspect of an open source project. A lot of open source projects have great programmers, great quality, but if they don't have a strong brand, they will never get the following needed to keep the project going, let alone make it big (like Mozilla or Ximian). You have to known... and to be known in any business, you need a strong brand and some decent marketing.
Trademark law may be lumped in with intellectual property, but it less about monopolizing an idea (patents) or controlling access to creative works (copyright) and more about eliminating consumer confusion.
If somebody wants to take Mozilla code and make their own browser or mail client, they can do that... but they can't call it Mozilla.
I wonder how many slashdot readers would have a problem with Mozilla enforcing its trademark rights if it was Microsoft who was selling Mozilla merchandise or a Microsoft Mozilla web browser?
the crack sellers down Mozilla merchandise.
Just one man's opinion, but scary icons and unfortunate names (GIMP comes to mind) probably have a much bigger impact on adoption than people realize.
How wrong can it be for someone to create a product at no cost, but simply fight to retain their own copyrighted work that they included into it? How hard is it to change a simple logo and a name? Let us not dwell on these quarrals, but instead use our collective open source powers to soar to new heights!
There is a simple option for those that don't get official permission from the Mozilla Foundation to use the trademarked artwork.
A simple "--enable-official-branding" flag can be used when building to include the official artwork. Otherwise, generic versions of the artwork are included (which are free/open). This is being worked on as we speak and should be in the nightly builds this week.
Steven Garrity
Mozilla Visual Identity Team
I think it's fine to ask the unofficial stores to not compete with the official stores. The Mozilla Foundation needs to get $$$ somehow. And whtever they decide on, they need to enforce their copyrights becasue copyrights need to actually be enforced, not like patents. So if Mozilla is shown to be ignoring their copyrights on some stuff, then someone could steal Moz code (also protected by copyright) and claim selective enforcement if Mozilla complained. I'm not sure how successful they could be, but it would still be a drain to fight.
However, i hoave no idea why they don't Open the irefoc logo. That's jsut weird, imo.
When someone modifies your software, and claims its theirs. If by some miracle MS Windows became opensource, i'd support it. And if they wouldnt let any of the unofficial builds use the microsoft logo, I'd support that to. That logo represents their official product, and they dont want that showing up on something they've never even seen before and reflecting badly on them. Its not free advertising. It's false advertising.
..In a non-offensive way, and this is the way you do it. It's either this or try to find a way to whore out the browser for profit.
The community should be supportive of this, because someone has to pay for it. Someone always pays..
Other than a CD, all they are offering is a stupid T-shirt. Mozilla might as well have set up a CafePress account. Seriously, it looks like they threw it together to make their case against merchandisers.
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
It's reporting news.
Since Debian is worried that Mozilla isn't "free" enough, does this mean we will not be seeing
Debian/GNU/Mozilla Firefox?
I'll stick to Mozilla Firefox...
I wonder if this will affect my two favorite Mozilla T-Shirts (hopefully not, since one doesn't even use the Mozilla trademark):
Futured
Tinderbox after a Hyatt landing
Debian is not saying their builds are official. They just want to be able to say what they supply _is_ FireFox. Mozilla is saying you can't use the name and image unless you haven't changed it at all.
Contrast this with Debian's logo policy. Anyone is allowed to use the Debian name and logo in a derivative product, but there is a *second* logo reserved solely for Debian's use on official builds and any approved projects, at their discretion. This way other people can use the name and logo that the Linux public knows while marking a distinction between them and official Debian-endorsed products.
There are 2 seperate issues here - while they may both stem from trademark they are NOT the same.
The Debian issue is due to the fact that Mozilla.ort does not want people taking the Mozilla icon data and using it other things - for example, they don't want me writing a Bittorrent program and using the Mozilla icon in it.
However, that means that part of the Mozilla source tree is NOT freely reusable - not even in a GPL style context. I can take a chunk of Mozilla *code* and put it in my GPL program, but not the Mozilla *artwork*.
---------------<hr type="poor mans">-----
Now, the second, seperate issue is this issue of folks making Mozilla mugs, hats, jackets, license plates, doggie dishes, and what have you, and selling those. THAT IS NOT A CODE ISSUE!
That is a STRAIGHT trademark issue - if Mozilla.org does not control such issues they will lose the trademark.
Now, first of all I think it's a pretty damn good sign that people feel it is worth making Mozilla branded whatnots - it is a sign we are winning, REJOICE!
However, it IS pretty scummy to cash in on the Mozilla name and not give back. Sure, I'd buy a Mozilla patch for my jacket, but I'd want to know that at least SOME of the money was going back to Mozilla.org!
So chill out, folks. Take a breath, read the letter, engage brain.
www.eFax.com are spammers
The point of free software is to provide a common base from which all people can profit.
Uh, the point is they (Mozilla) wanted to use a license which allowed users to have access to the source code. Anything above and beyond that is reading into the motives of the developers (in this case, originally the Netscape company) and supposing all open source developers have some sort of unified altruistic mission. There is no single open source movement. Open Source describes a licensing scheme and, perhaps, to a degree a programming methodology (though that's a stretch). Thus each organization or company which releases software under an open source license can do so for many reasons, but that doesn't necessarily mean they do it to "provide a common base" or that "all people can profit."
Some organizations and individuals have made Open Source into a sort of social-political movement. The foremost of these is the FSF. But not everyone agrees with them, nor needs to.
Read the GNU Manifesto... the goal is to have software available for free.
Mozilla does not use the GPL. It uses the MPL which is very different. Additionally, Mozilla is not part of the FSF, is not "free software" in this sense, and can have completely different goals from the rest of the so-called open source movement.
The first mistake most people make when evalutating open source software or the individuals and organizations which produce such software is to assume there exists a united effort with a single goal. Such a case is just about as likely as all humanity having a common purpose and single goal.
More on this subject at my blog
Who said Freedom was Fair?
his has led to debates about whether Firefox is free enough to be included in the Debian Linux distribution
Surely the debates are about whether or not Firefox is *old* enough. I'm sure they'll wait until firefox 1.0 before even thinking about including firefox 0.7
So the Debian guys could just change one letter and change the "o" to a "u" in FireFox, pronounced firefu.. :-)
Information wants to be free.
Art doesn't.
Who cares about the logos. I would think Mozilla would be glad of the free publicity. I use Firefox on linux, but if they're going to start suing T-shirt vendors I guess I'll be looking for a new browser.
yeah, well maybe if Mozilla added a few more items to meet demand they wouldn't have this issue. In the store.mozilla.org they ONE WHITE T-SHIRT with a mozilla logo on it.
I own a web based store that sells various OSS trinkets (t-shirts, cups, mousepads, etc) and I am pretty pissed about this. We all contributed to Mozilla and now they screw us back by not letting us make any money off of it. This is a big deal since I make a good living out of supplying branded goods to tradeshows, corporations, and individuals.
As for Debian, I agree with them. Mozilla is now non-free!
any day now we'll have the true mosaic killer...
I'm going to name it SURFTHEINTERNETATYOURPERILASSWIPES.
/sarcasm
Surely that hasn't been trademarked yet, has it?
Not to mention it'd discourage people from using it in their retail product names.
Who knows, maybe it'll take off. Well shit, everything else it taken already.
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
Seriously, compare the two.
Rukh Egg
obviously, the parent is a troll. look at the username, and what he says. don't bother replying, just mod down.
I realize that AOL does not own the Mozilla Project or the Mozilla Foundation (please see my other posts).
Maybe those items are what Open Source is about for you. You seem to have more pragmatic concerns in mind. However, other people feel differently. OSS, for me, is an idealistic venture as well as a pragmatic one. I really like the idea of freedom of ideas and information. OSS seems likes the best implementation yet of my ideals. However, pressing legal action for trademark violation is certainly not something that I can support in good conscience.
I respect your viewpoint of OSS and its purpose, but realize that many would disagree.
I bought a "Mozilla CD Subscription" when it first came out...
Here are some alternative icons for Debian Freefox:
-Firefox Icon v3 by Jyrik (remade from scratch)
-Mozilla Firefox Final by auto-logic
-Firefox Experiment N3 by weboso
-Tails as Firefox by polimero
I am sure all of these people would be happy to open source their designs.:P
Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
Waaaahhhhh!!! I can't copy people's work and turn a profit off it... Mommy!!! (for those that can't remember these were the kids that had nearly everything(debian) and cried when the kid down the block had something cool they couldn't have.)
Name branding is profit potential in the future... don't kid yourselves. Any of these companies are looking to make money the easy way. They are no different than any other company that have come before them.
Tails as Firefox. Meh.:)
Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
Probably dumb luck, but it's interesting that this happens less than 48 hours after I put this page and sent it to the licensing and marketing folks at Mozilla - mainly because as they mention in the letter they don't offer much in their store. God forbid the community try to continue this grass roots movement that is OSS an get the word out that there is something on the planet besides IE to use.
I sent a request to their licensing folks to see if I can continue to offer the free graphics I spent a few hours on (reworking the FF logo as a vector, etc.) for download, but I'm not feeling too good about the reply I'll get. I guess that no one in this industry can work on something for the love of working on it, everything has to boil down to a f*ck!ng paycheck. I guess it's true that everyone has a price, and everyone that has a product used by more than 3 people HAS to have a team of lawyers to make being a fan/supporter hell... pretty damn disappointing.
Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence in society - M. Twain
As a lifelong artist/musician/writer I call BS!
Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence in society - M. Twain
Why not build whatever version you think your distro needs, and call it "Web Browser?"
This Like That - fun with words!
You see, this is still pretty much under discussion, and the summary I gave you is *my* personal account of debian-legal (to which I subscribe). Yes, this pretty much means "I don't know". The main problem is, AFAIK, that the DFSG prohibits Debian from distributing (at least) the artwork if it is not DFSG-free.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
Ha! Figures that this would get modded +4, Funny instead of Insightful.
I've had it with Slashdot. Is there anyone here who doesn't still fucking live with their parents?
It's idotic reasons like this that c an cause a Open Source implosion. What are we, the users, supposed to think? I think Mozilla seems to forget that to get users, they need to get the browser in front of eyes. Linux distros using Mozilla Firefox as the default browser can expose lots of users to the browser. Same goes for people making t-shirts. People can ask...what is that symbol for and the wearer can say te best damn drowser in the world! That is FREE publicity. Also, last I checked, Mozilla was considered open source. Anyone can download it. It's not like the Mozilla project is there to MAKE money unlike Microsoft and IE.
Gorkman
goto either the mozilla-gumi (japanese moz programmers) or JLP (japanese language project) and check the website icon. The "mo" is the two lines with a fishhook through it. You won't find any lizard head on their site. I havn't been and I've been trying
You can't get Outlook viruses in Evolution. Therefore, no royalties. Evolution is inferior until it can accurately replicate Outlook virus behavior.
A new version of Opera has finally been released for Mac OS X.
now that mozilla phoe..firebi.. firefox is no longer free i think it is time we considered some alternative browsers that are free and open source. I think we should drop Mozilla and just use konqueror/ safari :)
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
I think Mozilla should protect who it is. If debian needs to change the source, then it's not longer Mozilla, and shouldn't use Mozilla's logo without it. Now, I believe they could apply for recognition as Mozilla, but if I wrote an application and some distribution wanted to change it and still call it as if I had wrote it without my approval I would tell them to screw off too. While I'm a big debian fan and a supporter, Eric Dorland (and whatever other Debian maintainers) need to get a grip. I'm sure the Mozilla maintainers are willing to work with Debian. There is no need for Debian to be a jackass about this. Geez.
Could you sell a tee shirt with the code printed on it? ;)
Agile Artisans
"The letter suggests that the Foundation are willing to work with those selling Mozilla wares, as long as they get a cut and the retailer isn't operating in the US, Canada or Mexico, where they would be competing with the Foundation's own Mozilla Store"
They will happily take a contibution fof source code, without paying, but you can't sell or distribute the product?
We used to laugh when people said companies would abuse OS developers. we would say, anybody can distribute it, it can't be controlled.
Well, thanks for shitting on us Mozilla.
hmm, since its a trade mark issue, maybe I'll just compile my oen sans any reference to 'Mozilla' or any of there oh so valuable trademarked Godzilla rip off image.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"2. Open Source is about ensuring quality, "
not it is not. that is just a possible outcome of open source. However, if your product doesn't have the 'many eyes' it can still be lacking in quality.
"adherence to standards,"
nothing says an open source product must adhere to standards. They usually do, but in know way is this a part of Open source. How many open source products adhere to a standarad menu bar?
"You might be able to support yourself
and your shop, though. Successfuly defending a trademarked logo
might be the difference between life and death for a project."
true, but isn't there something of a double standard where you take contibutions for a product, then don't allow people to distribute it?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
thats what Opem Source need, lawuers. That will make it better.
I'm sorry, but I have a problem with somebody who happily takes my bug reports and code, then says I can't distibute the product, or sell merchandise.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
You can use our code, just not our log.
Riiiiiiight.
Chicken fried butter sticks? Do
Little bits and peices breaking away and becoming unfree as the money starts to peek it's little head into the mix of things....
"Totally free use" of the name & icons may not be the ideal solution for Firefox, but they need to make a little more compromise than this.
How long they send a letter to The Toronto Raptors for selling products with their logo.
Or are the Toronto Raptors supposed to send the letter, since they existed first.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
think about this:
- You do have to defend your trademark to keep it. You cannot selectively enforce trademark. If it becomes diluted, you lose it.
- What if I took my own browser, totally unrelated to the mozilla project, and called it FireFox, should I be allowed to do this? Same for Apache, or Gnome, or the GIMP, or any other tool out there.
- Who really cares... after all this is about a name, not about code, or function.. it's just about marketing.
Damn The Man. Damn The Man.
There's a "mozilla store"??????? WTF? Who knew about this?
http://store.mozsource.com/pageload.do Oh look you can get the browser on a CD or a T-shirt. Neat.
And people are making rip-off T-shirts?? Buggers.
Ahh yes... but they want to decide at what level the changes are too many to be "official". What constitutes too many changes to be able to use that "official" name. Sure makes it hard to manage a package for a distribution when you constantly have to check over your shoulder and see if a security patch is "too much"
And this is different from what the Mozilla people are doing how?
Most people here have said something interesting and on the point, but few seem to have put them all together. The point is whether Mozilla is Open or Free. We keep mixing these terms up because in many instances, to us as progammers, they're pretty interchangable.
However in something like this, there's actually a big difference. For something that is Open Source, protecting the trademark makes sense. The project has an identity and there is no reason why that identity shouldn't be protected. This may place restrictions on changes or use of material, but the *code* is still there, still changable, still redistributable.
For something that is Free Software however, its completely different. The objective here is not identity, even with the GNU/Linux calls. The objective is Freedom as in Speech, to do as you wish with the software so long as you grant others the same freedom. It's no good for the original author to have more freedom than other contributors, in the software or in the naming or in anything. The key to quality should not be "what it is", but "who it came from". The "source", from program code to vector graphics files for the logos and buttons to anything else appropriate should be available so that anything the user wishes to change can be changed.
And this is why it's an issue for the Debian group. They're really into Free, they like Free and for Debian, Free is definitely the preferance since they make a number of changes on many projects to help them fit into the distribution as a whole better.
Of course, people will do bad things. Don't ever be under the illusion that Free or Open things always improve. Sometimes, someone does something almost terminally stupid with a project. The point, however, is that nothing is *lost*. The original is still there, and if the reputation concept works, the best will float to the top from collective experience.
So don't get annoyed when Debian screws something up and mozilla gets bug reports. It's going to happen, the only way to prevent it, will prevent the benefits you get as well, and the benefits outweigh the downsides by a staggering degree. Lets not get too fussed and throw the baby out with the bathwater (or the email out with the spam if you prefer). We can deal with this kind of thing in ways other than removing our freedom.
You can't win a fight.
If open source programmers had artist girlfriends with any real talent, this wouldn't be a problem.
Firedash!
Just rename it when releasing it, and use a different logo. Firefox/Firebird/Phoenix/Mozilla hasn't had a name change in something like a *month*, and is damn well overdue for one.
I don't really care about user confusion -- what Debian does is probably going to be the same thing all the other distro vendors do, so it's quite possible that the *new* name will attract more attention than the "firefox" name (which I never thought was all that cool -- certainly not as good as the earlier names).
It's just not hassling with potential future problems with the Mozilla Foundation if a name change and switching out the artwork is all it takes to avoid IP problems.
May we never see th
I understand the artwork is copyrighted.
I understand I need a licence to copy/use the artwork.
The thing I'm missing is this:
If the MPL does NOT give me a license to copy/use the artwork, then what DOES???
What license does ANYONE have to download/copy/use the artwork?
It seems to me that when you download the source - the artwork is included - it is part of the source - you can't build a "Firefox" without it- so it should be covered by the MPL.
Mozilla Browser
Mozilla Mail
Enough of this Phoenix/Thunderbird/Fire Bird/Fire Fox/Camino shit. Again, in case you missed it:
Mozilla Browser
Mozilla Mail
The middle mind speaks!
They should take a lesson from Tux. Make the logo freely available.
Am I the only person who has noticed that the practice of everyone and their dog rolling their own open source license for their project is extremely detrimental to the movement? We have the GPL, LGPL, BSD, MIT, X, and Apache licenses to name a few, and even these go through revisions. Then there are the people who make "GPL-compatible" (or so they assert) licenses, and things like that, further muddying the waters with regard to which code you can reuse where. It actually makes the headache of dual-licensing start to sound attractive.
Maybe, just maybe, a bunch of people with a lot more influence than I have could put aside their differences and egos and accept that there are a variety of rational views, and we should have a small set of standard licenses that is varied and general enough that just about everyone should be able to pick one and be almost completely satisfied.
Creative Commons got it right. Look at their list of licenses. It's not very long. I was actually considering publishing something under a creative commons license recently, and couldn't find any license that perfectly described what I wanted, but I found one that was close enough for practical purposes. I recall reading that Linus Torvalds used the GPL for Linux in deference to the GCC project, rather than an absolute devotion to the FSF's ideals. If accepting a "pretty good" license works for him, it ought to work for most of the rest of us.
Choice and uniformity both have value, but striking a balance between them requires either some organization or evolutionary dumb luck, which I don't think we should wait for. So, how about it, people?
WARNING: there is a trojan on your
too true
The license allows others to use it. The Mozilla guys are not pulling stuff out of Open Source. They are taking material which is originally their own, and putting it into Open Source.
People seem to forget this.
Yeah, I know, that probably was meant to be funny, but I'm sure it was also meant to be insightful as well. Debian really ought to do something like that to package FireFox into Debian.
// file: mice.h
#include "frickin_lasers.h"
I propose to ensure every user knows the name of his browser, that the default start page should be changed to a page with a little quiz like this:
What's this browser called today? (yes, the one with its icon in small sizes looks like a little embryo)
mozilla-browser? - are you kidding?
mozilla-firebird? - no.
mozilla-firedog? - no... maybe tomorrow.
mozilla-thundercat? - nope.
moziall-feuerfuchs? - NEIN!
mozilla-firefox? - well, that was yesterday's answer... but close enough, I let you pass.
Read the actual intent behind this 'profiteer' here
Looks like miscommunication to me. We'll have to see if egos allow it to deflate into the harmless thing from which it came.
-FL
Hmm, I'm not a solicitor myself, but what I've been taught about IPRs in techlaw basic courses, is that Trademarks only protect commercial use of brands (brand items). Such as Firefox logo, e.g. If Debian now wants to include the logo in it's distro, it should, in my opinion, be able to do so without asking permissions. Now if it was (or is) selling something with a logo attached, then it would be illegal. Anyone got any other ideas on this?
If the logos are considered to have copyrights, then it's another issue, as copying the logo without permission would be illegal.
corepirate nazi execrable?
.asp, eye gas?
none too soon for US to save yOUR
consult with/trust in yOUR creators.... get ready for some more major league intervention/healing to happen.
I am suprised that the green japanase versuion of Mozilla hasnt already made a stink about the browser ripping off thier name.
I mean come on if M$ can get a ruling against Lindows why cant the japananse version of the miaa do the same to Mozilla.
Things could be worse. Isnt this the reason that its no longer called pheniox because of the BIOS people.
Hell you cant even use your own name without some ones panties getting in a wad nowadays
Just a thought
Next you'll be telling me my ESR brand jeans or my Stallman wizard outfit are knock-offs.
"Threats of legal action for non-compliance are issued, albeit with friendly overtones."
How on Earth does forcing people to use a different name for software which is 99.99% the same eliminates consumer confusion?
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
If it can be shown that they were deliberately (or even: carelessly) misleading people about their intentions, wouldn't this be a case of estoppel, preventing them to pursue any such legal action?
Linus own the trademark Linux, I don't see that holding back the spread of the linux code
or does the Mozilla icon look like the Toronto Raptors' mascot?
We have Free As In Speech, and Free As In Beer. Could Firefox be filed under a new category, Free As In Qmail - you can download it and alter it, but if you call it Free Software on Slashdot, then 100 people get to loudly correct you?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
His family might be upset as well. Curly's family went after the guys that came up with the 'Curl' language, I think. Also several Calculus and Physics textbook publishers were sued.
who cares about the logo firefox put the "FIRE" back in porn searching.. no more out of control popups! talk about free willy....
Consider that Toho (the owners of "Godzilla") went after Davezilla a while back. Then consider that they just announced that Godzilla is retiring.
Someone at Toho is bound to realize that with the big G in retirement, they are going to need a new revenue stream. And someone else is bound to offer the idea of the Darl McBride method of revenue generation.
And I don't think Mozilla would pass for "generic" as related to trademark law. If "Kleenex" isn't generic enough to lose its trademark status, I highly doubt Mozilla is. And even then, its generic use isn't among people but among computer programs.
The difference is that no one is trying to, nor likely will in the near future, make a buck off the Gnu label in any fashion except that enhances Gnu. (It's unimportant for the purposes of my point, whether Gnu or it's icons are trademarked.)
We all know that RMS is very protective of the GPL and all things Gnu, and so he should be! He and thousands of volunteers have worked very hard in creating great, unfettered software.
You wouldn't want someone selling baby-seal clubs with a Gnu label stamped on it. Or cigarettes. Or really crappy software. Or body-armor-piercing bullets. Or gamma hydroxybutyrate. Or stripped car parts. Or surveillance devices.
If gnu.org had the sort of visibility with the general public that Mozilla does, and people ready to make a cheap buck at the expense of their reputation, then I guarantee you gnu.org would be taking a different stance on this issue.
In fact, in the long run it is probably a good thing that Mozilla is protecting the Firefox trademarks. Unethical businessmen, of which their are so few, could co-opt any OSS brand as a tactic to undermine the OSS and Free software movement(s) by purposefully distributing faulty products.
Some of those people are freaks--I roast and grind my own coffee, and I certainly don't qualify as a coffee snob when you check them out.
Tarpley's is fine and dandy, and I think it's great they support the Mozilla foundation. But I would recommend doing what I did: buy your organic, fair-trade, bird-friendly coffee from Birds and Beans, take the money you saved (CDN$6 a pound for green coffee in bulk--awesome prices!), and donate that to the Mozilla Foundation.
A couple of months ago I ordered 45 pounds of coffee and donated $50 to the Mozilla Foundation. I'm drinking kickbutt coffee (with only me to blame if the brew is bad), helping out third-world farmers and the environment, and supporting the makers of my favourite browser.
Trying hard not to feel holier than thou... :)
Moz are not exactly rolling in the millions. If they want/need merchandising to keep on going, I don't see why not. Anyone merchandising off their products (the name certainly means nothing outside their context) is essentially ripping them off. I say they should go for it. The world needs what they are doing as things are right now.
The issue is that this is the start of a slippery slope. Let's try a thought experiment:
Company X take Mozilla, and make some big improvements to the interface, including adding support for (say) SVG. They release the source code back to the community, as required by the license--but they keep all the artwork and data files proprietary, including all the image and data files necessary for the XUL user interface and the SVG support. Furthermore, they take out trademarks and patents to prevent cloning of those data files.
Don't laugh off the idea--did you know that many methods of representing continuous color images using CMYK ink dots are patented, and that those patents have been upheld? It's not hard to imagine a method of dithering SVG images to textures on a bitmap screen being similarly patentable.
Now in our thought experiment, in spite of the software being "open source", it has effectively been stolen and made closed. Company X can sell their proprietary version of Mozilla, and nobody can use the improvements in the free version. They could even use Palladium-like digital signature technology to make sure that the proprietary binary distribution couldn't be made to work with open data and graphics, even though the source code is available.
As I see it, for a piece of software to be open source, you need to be allowed to redistribute and use all of the sources needed to build the entire thing. If I can't build Mozilla exactly as it is in the official binary distribution and give it to a friend, it's not open source.
That's why when I released one of my screensavers under the GPL, I released the artwork files under the GPL as well.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Reaaaally smart move to turn down free advertising.
Then piss off all free software developers by making Firefox artwork non-free.
"Yeah I know all you programmer guys spent five years doing this -- but we won't give back OUR fine artwork!"
Really smart.
I just updated my Debian computer, and now my Firefox is still called Firefox, but it has a much different logo (looks like a globe). If you compare the new logo to the official one, it's the same logo but with the fox removed.
I searched the Debian email archive web pages but could not find any message saying what's going on. I don't know if this is the new official compromise or not.
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely