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
More power to them I say. Free Software shouldn't be equated with the right to brazenly steal from those who provide it.
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.
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.
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.
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 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
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
That would be interesting if AOL still owned Mozilla. Unfortunatly for you, they don't.
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
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..
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
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?
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.
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
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.
Even ignoring the fact that AOL does not own Mozilla;
1. We want large corporations to be involved in Open Source.
They use their resources to grow the project, then return the
code to the community.
2. Open Source is about ensuring quality, adherence to standards,
and defence against hoarders (monopolies).
3. Open Source is _not_ about impoverishing coders and their companies.
You may not get rich from selling packaged versions of your project,
t-shirts, mugs, and books. 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.
-- "It was as if the paint factories had decided to deal direct with the art galleries." - Thursday Next
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?
So the Debian guys could just change one letter and change the "o" to a "u" in FireFox, pronounced firefu.. :-)
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!
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.
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.
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
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
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
"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.
Damn The Man. Damn The Man.
If open source programmers had artist girlfriends with any real talent, this wouldn't be a problem.
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
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.
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.
If the MPL does NOT give me a license to copy/use the artwork, then what DOES???
:-)
Emailing licensing@mozilla.org and getting permission.
When you download the source, the artwork isn't necessarily included. It gets pulled if you set the configure option.
Gerv
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 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