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?
Problem solved.
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...
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?
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.
Hey! Don't rip off our Godzilla rip-off!
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.
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
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?
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
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
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?
Companies who do not make the effort to defend their marks are seriously disadvantaged should they require a legal remedy to a branding issue. I think it's probably a wise move for Mozilla.org being high profile software.
Look at the next sentence...
"Could you google something for me on MSN?"
That could happen, especially the way the google name is thrown around these days. I really think this is a case of 'being prepared' and protecting the integrity of the brand. That can be important, even for OSS.
The use of 'Mozilla' in this context was never a protocol issue. I've never seen any protocol specify that HTTP user agents must contain the string 'Mozilla'.
Internet Explorer was trying to trick dynamic web pages into thinking it was Netscape.
Of course, the primary reason why an attempt to sue MS would have failed is that trademark protection doesn't extend to anything that is hidden from the user -- the only offences under trademark law are related to attempting to pass your product off as somebody elses, or otherwise confusing customers so that you can trade on somebody else's reputation. Thats why 'trade' is in the name. Because MS weren't openly calling IE 'mozilla', no issue arises.
IANAL, etc.