Firefox Faces Trademark Issues

daria42 writes "The Debian development community is currently hotly debating whether the Mozilla Foundation's strict trademarks policy violates Debian's social contract. However, in a twist, it appears Mozilla has not received approval for the Firefox trademarks yet, and the Firefox name may already be taken in the UK and Germany. The foundation has not applied for the Thunderbird trademark anywhere yet."

Comments

jeez..here we go again

[rogueuk]

So I wonder what new name they'll pick now...

Re:jeez..here we go again

[Frohboy]

I'm just glad this story was here to remind me to reinstall the Firesomething extension.

Incidentally, Firesomething still works in newer versions of Firefox, if you're willing to screw with it. Just go to about:config, change app.extensions.version to "0.10", install Firesomething, exit Firefox, restart, go back to about:config, and reset app.extensions.version to the default value (by right-clicking and choosing "reset").

Re:jeez..here we go again

[sinfree]

I was thinking perhaps "Farfaux" ;)

Re:jeez..here we go again

[kristopher]

Firerogue?

Re:jeez..here we go again

[paranoidgeek]

Or for a fix that doesnt require changing FF rename the file to .zip open and change install.rdf so that

<em:minVersion>0.10</em:minVersion>
<em:maxVers ion>0.10</em:maxVersion>

is

<em:minVersion>0.10</em:minVersion>
<em:maxVers ion>1.0.4</em:maxVersion>

then rename the .zip to .xpi

Re:jeez..here we go again

[a whoabot]

They should just call it "Mozilla." Or some variation on that, like "Mozilla Browser" or whatever. I know they still have the Mozilla Suite, but that can be called the Suite, and not many people use it; I doubt it would be confusing. And is it not being phased out?

"Mozilla" sounds nice and people still know the name, and, for a large part, associate it solely with Firefox. It would be a good choice.

Re:jeez..here we go again

[edbulldog]

Some options may be Firegila, Firequidna, Firewallabie, firehummingbird, Fireturtledove, Firechanate or some other Fire-NotCommonAnimalName ;)

Re:jeez..here we go again

[wheany]

I just invented this great name: Opera. Or maybe "Mozilla Opera."

NO, WAIT: Firebird.

Re:jeez..here we go again

[packetl0ss]

Mozilla CantThinkOfANameAnymoreDamnit?

Re:jeez..here we go again

[Waffle Iron]

So I wonder what new name they'll pick now...

My suggestions:
"{1e8ba19e-48eb-4a68-bec4-d81c010069e4} (tm) Web Browser" and
"{33899fb5-719b-4e75-a0ef-e7f91b196030} (tm) Mail Client"

The odds that these name have been previously trademarked are rather slim.

Re:jeez..here we go again

[croddy]

Iceweasal?

Re:jeez..here we go again

[Anonymous Coward]

obligatory adult swim reference: just call it Shippo.

Re:jeez..here we go again

[GraemeDonaldson]

Fireduckbilledplatypus anyone?

Re:jeez..here we go again

[delGrey]

How about Derek? I understand it means wanderer in some obscure language.

Re:jeez..here we go again

[kaens]

Shouldn't you just make it 99.99.99 so you never have to update it again?

Re:jeez..here we go again

[unitron]

Or we could always try to generate good will towards both open source browers and open source operating systems and call it Mozillux.

Re:jeez..here we go again

[paranoidgeek]

Well.. not really becuase we dont know whether or not version '99.99.99' will still be compatible with this extension.

Re:jeez..here we go again

[Anonymous Coward]

You misspelled MozBSD.

Re:jeez..here we go again

[kaens]

Eh, true. Knowing me, I would probably rename it 99.99.99 then forget about it until something changed in firefox's code that caused a crash with that extension still being used, and by then I would have forgotten about renaming it in the first place. Better safe than sorry, I suppose.

Sometimes though, it's better lazy than safe (ok ok not really) but I don't think that it's too much of a jump to assume that considering that it still works now, that it's still going to work for a while - at least until the next major code change (or until they change something dealing with the user-agent string and how its set, I don't know firefox's code at all) so perhaps 2.0.0 is a more reasonable choice of numbering.

Then again, I have a tendency to ramble on about shit that doesn't matter, and they don't call you paranoidgeek for no reason do they?

Re:jeez..here we go again

[Elranzer]

Mozilla Explorer? The icon could be a big, firey E

Re:jeez..here we go again

[paranoidgeek]

Then again, I have a tendency to ramble on about shit that doesn't matter, and they don't call you paranoidgeek for no reason do they?

Haha my paranoia here is nothing compared to what i do in a (PHP/MySQL) CMS i am writting. Nice comments BTW it is nice to see someone on /. that has a discussion about something rather than the "OMG l0l n00b !!" i see too much here.

Re:jeez..here we go again

[Anonymous Coward]

"Mozilla Frylock"...I like it.

Re:jeez..here we go again

[Anonymous Coward]

Peregrinus? or a bit more anglicised, as Peregrine?

Classier than Derek. And you could have a nice logo.

Re:jeez..here we go again

[indifferent children]

PyroVulpus

Re:jeez..here we go again

[zero_offset]

RTFA. Nobody is contesting their right to the name, but the entire first page of comments (and thanks to the miracle of slashcode, the same comments on the next few pages) is a bunch of speculation and whining about their new name, or who is suing whom, etc.

In fact, the article title is crap. They don't face "trademark issues", Debian just doesn't like the Moz trademark policy.

Re:jeez..here we go again

[A coward on a mouse]

Sorry, but you can't trademark a number. Pretty sure that covers hex numbers as well.

Re:jeez..here we go again

[Lord Haha]

You missed out on the discussion yesterday about numbers didnt you...

http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/16/ 1810237&tid=185&tid=3

Re:jeez..here we go again

[Cylix]

Here is the problem as I see it...

While Debian has been given permission to use trademarks those who would rename/redistribute debian do not have such permission.

So, if Joe Smith makes a really horrid implementation of debian it is possible his trademark use could be prevented. As a side thought, it would be funny for someone to intentionally make a bad distro.

Mozilla foundation says if you want to avoid that possibility rebrand it.

As I was thinking about it, it does make some sense if they are patching it in any way. At least you explicity know you have a variant of firefox that might be better then the rest. (Though I'm sure any security fixes will eventually make it back to the original firefox)

Beyond percieved market fragmentation it isn't a bad stance entirely.

Re:jeez..here we go again

[smittyoneeach]

FireOreb or FireChough, for my Gene Wolfe enthusiasts.

Re:jeez..here we go again

[DarKnyht]

Reminds me of the following Monty Python Skit...

Dead Monkeys are to split up again, according to their manager, Lefty Goldblatt. They've been in the business now ten years, nine as other groups. Originally the Dead Salmon, they became for a while, Trout. Then Fried Trout, then Poached Trout In A White Wine Sauce, and finally, Herring. Splitting up for nearly a month, the re-formed as Red Herring, which became Dead Herring for a while, and then Dead Loss, which reflected the current state of the group. Splitting up again to get their heads together, they reformed a fortnight later as Heads Together, a tight little name which lasted them through a difficult period when their drummer was suspected of suffering from death. It turned out to be only a rumor and they became Dead Together, then Dead Gear, which lead to Dead Donkeys, Lead Donkeys, and the inevitable split up. After nearly ten days, they reformed again as Sole Manier, then Dead Sole, Rock Cod, Turbot, Haddock, White Baith, the Places, Fish, Bream, Mackerel, Salmon, Poached Salmon, Poached Salmon In A White Wine Sauce, Salmon-monia, and Helen Shapiro. This last name, their favorite, had to be dropped following an injunction and they split up again. When they reformed after a recordbreaking two days, they ditched the fishy references and became Dead Monkeys, a name which they stuck with for the rest of their careers. Now, a fortnight later, they've finally split up.

Re:jeez..here we go again

[rrgmitchell]

How about "Guyfaux"?

Re:jeez..here we go again

[Anonymous Coward]

Oooh, no no, wait, better yet...

Mozilla ... Phoenix!

Re:jeez..here we go again

[Anonymous Coward]

As a side thought, it would be funny for someone to intentionally make a bad distro.

You mean like these guys?

Re:jeez..here we go again

[Fireye]

I'm sorry... did someone say my name? No? My mistake :(

Re:jeez..here we go again

[FlameSnyper]

Nogunna... nogunna... nogunna-work-here-anymore?

Re:jeez..here we go again

[Anonymous Coward]

landnewt
skyferrot
waterbadger
....

Re:jeez..here we go again

[mattspammail]

FireNewt? FireTitMouse? (heh heh. I said tit.)

Re:jeez..here we go again

[MikeFM]

Which is why I just make up nonsense words as the names for my websites. No trademark issues and they're easy to search for.

I was told that Kavlon is pretty close to some rather amussing Greek words though. It makes Greeks think I'm a pervert. Rather funny.

Re:jeez..here we go again

[Kent Recal]

How about... phoenix?

Why?

[turtled]

Why does something open source / free have to always be about money? I have never heard the term Firefox before the Firefox browser (not saying something of Firefox didn't exist).

Also, why does it take over a year or so to come about?

Re:Why?

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Given the issues over the naming, I am surprised that they aren't more thoughrough with their checks.

Re:Why?

[kinzillah]

It's not about that. It's about placing restrictions on distributing modifications. With a trademark in place they have to sue you if you release something called Firefox even if it was derived from Firefox. You can call it shoebox and be fine, but they are exploring if restricting what you can call it is too much for debian's lofty ideals.

Re:Why?

[_undan]

Where in any of these articles does money come into it? This is about one organisation wanting to protect it's trademarks (which is fair enough), and another organisation debating whether or not that fits in with their social policy.

It's got precicely SFA to do with money.

Re:Why?

[localzuk]

I always thought that Trademarks could only be claimed in their particular field - the depth of that particular industry/field depending.

So in this case (as software is a VERY LARGE field) Firefox should be ok as a trademark as long as it has not been registered previously as the trademark for a web browser.

If the field is widened, then it might apply to all software (which it never should as that would be like widening the scope to a ridiculous level) then the trademark could still be proven that it doesn't use the goodwill or brand awareness of the other trademark in order to 'sell'.

But then again - what do the rules matter? Look at the US Patent Office.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

from the land of Vespa, the first OSS (open source scooter). Selling since 1997 I think.

Re:Why?

[eibon]

I always thought that Trademarks could only be claimed in their particular field - the depth of that particular industry/field depending. Yup. The World Wrestling Federation's efforts to save animal life must be why they're no longer a federation, but just "Entertainment."

Re:Why?

[starwed]

What you shouldn't be surprised about anymore is alarmist stories in the media.

In fact, they were pretty thorough. When mozilla.org announced the name change, the trademark holder in the UK was mentioned; also mentioned was the deal negotiated with that trademark holder. Oddly enough, the article doesn't contain that last bit of information. Not inflammatory enough, I guess. ^_^

Gervase Markham has a response up on his blog that should probably be read if you find this story interesting.

Re:Why?

[hyc]

Not only do trademarks have to be registered in a specific field, but they have to be registered in a specific class of product or service. Still, the guiding principle is whether use of the mark will cause confusion for the public.

When I registered my trademark for my band (Highland Sun, http://www.highlandsun.com/ I received a letter from someone who was registering a mark for "Highland Sun Farms" - a horse ranch somewhere (in Kentucky IIRC) asking me to stop using the name as it infringed on his. Even though our two uses of the mark (including graphical design/logo) are completely unrelated, his trademark attorney advised him to contact me. (For a variety of reasons, my claim to the mark had sufficient merit, so I am still using it to this day.) Much as I hate anything associated with IP law, I recognize that that guy was just doing his job, protecting the value of his client's mark.

Having just read through about a half of the debian trademark debate, I'm glad I don't have to wrestle with it. And I give props to the guys who are standing on their principles. I can see valid points on multiple sides of the debate.

1) The guiding principle of Free Software is to give users the freedom to use and distribute the software, without unreasonable restrictions. There are a few restrictions of course, like - you must not claim the software as your own if you didn't actually write it - you must attribute it to the actual authors. In other words, you are prohibited from being a jerk about it.

2) The basic premise of trademarks is that there is value in a name, and that value and name must be protected. As such, use of a trademarked name is tightly controlled, pretty much by definition. (If you're not going to worry about controlling use of the name, then there's no point in getting the trademark registration in the first place.)

I believe if you carry the principles of the Free Software Foundation to their ultimate conclusion (reductio ad absurdum, in this case) then they are incompatible with all three forms of Intellectual Property - copyrights, patents, and trademarks. Because in order to use a piece of software, you need a handle with which to refer to it. Even if I give you the code for free, if I don't let you call it by the same name that other people call it, then your use of the software is severely hampered. e.g. "I just wrote this C compiler. I call it the GNU C compiler. You're welcome to use it too, but you can't use the same name, because I'm afraid you'll make modifications to it that harm its quality, and I don't want your version to harm the reputation of my original code. So you're not allowed to use the words "GNU", "C" or "compiler" in any combination in reference to your copy of it."

Fortunately, nobody needs to carry it to that extreme, because the FSF's goal isn't just Freedom for the sake of some abstract philosophical condition, the goal is FAIRNESS. That's why reasonable restrictions are part of the GPL and other FAIR licenses. "You may distribute modifications of this code, but you must clearly mark your modifications. You must use a different version number. etc..." That's fair - it avoids people confusing your copy for the original, but it allows you to keep referring to it by essentially the same name, so that when people see "gcc-4.0.5-hyc" they have some idea that "oh, this is a customized version of gcc" and they don't have to ask themselves, "wtf is this buffalo-chip-code-generator doing on my distro and why should I care?"

Re:Why?

[Frit Mock]

It is not about money ... it is about making sure they can use the name forever.

Any company could release a product (not only software, it could be anything), call it firefox and register "firefox" as their trademark. After that they can sue mozilla-foundation for using their registered trademark.

It is not a good situation, if the name of a program has to change every this and then. For free software a decrese in userbase is almost for sure.

Re:Why?

[prell]

No kidding, but who would reasonably think that the name "Firefox" would be taken by anyone, for anything? There aren't that many spontaneously-combusting fox advocates out there that I know of.

And I remember when I first heard the name Firefox, I remember not knowing if I'd like it, but I did grow to quite quickly. It has a nice ring to it.

Firesomething

[kalleguld]

Good thing I installed that plugin, almost makes the browser change name less often.

Re:FireSomething

[sinewalker]

what about FireSomeone... :-P

Re:FireSomething

[EvilGrin666]

Get the repacked version http://www.extensionsmirror.nl/extfirefox/Firesome thing_1.6.0_rep.xpi

Re:Firesomething

[tlhIngan]

Has Firesomething been updated yet? I loved it, but FF 1.0 broke it permanently... and I do recall it never working since.

Re:Firesomething

[Fallingcow]

There's a hack in about:config to get it to work. Look it up. Just do the hack (chaning a 1.00 to a 0.10), install Firesomething, change the number back to 1.00, and restart firefox. Works on 1.04. I just did it today.

Great, just drive more people from your distro.

[Anonymous Coward]

What a fantastic idea, promote ideas that will drive people away from your distro rather than encouraging people to try Debian.

So, if you're tired of Linux Politics I suggest a free and a not-so free alternative to Lurmickes.

Re:Great, just drive more people from your distro.

[McGiraf]

Debian is not after market share, read the Debian Social Contract.It's about freedom.
But then again if you tired of Linux politics don't bother. But you will be sorry when this is the only alternative.

Re:Great, just drive more people from your distro.

[Brandybuck]

Get a clue! You sound like with the Debian Social Contract, Microsoft would be walking all over everything. But reality shows something else. Reality shows NON-DEBIAN distros emerging, growing and putting down deep roots, even at the same time that Microsoft is a monopoly. Mandrake, SuSE, Slackware, Gentoo, et al, do not operate under the Debian Social Contract. They include GFDL documentation. They include Firefox. Back when Debian said KDE was illegal, they included KDE. And did Microsoft destroy them for it? OF COURSE NOT!

Debian isn't about freedom, it's about anal pedantic legalism.

Re:Great, just drive more people from your distro.

[NemosomeN]

I think Debian serves an important purpose. It can be seen as a "pure" distribution. I don't use it, and I never will (likely), but it seems to be a GREAT starting point for a derivative work. Search distrowatch for a debian based distro.

Re:Great, just drive more people from your distro.

[aristotle-dude]

I'm sorry but how do contract, rules and regulations promote freedom?

Restrictions, restrict freedom. Do you have a different dictionary than the rest of the world?

I respect that it is your right to shackle yourself with whatever rules/social contract etc... you want but that has nothing to do with promoting "freedom".

Re:Great, just drive more people from your distro.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry but how do contract, rules and regulations promote freedom?

The contract and the rules are there to make sure that Debian is completely free forever. If there were no rules, and Debian maintainers could just stick anything in there, Debian would stop being what it is.

Right now, you know that you can grab a disk image of Debian, burn a stack of CDs, and give the CDs to your friends. You know this is legal, because the Debian guys are so careful about license issues.

Remember submarine patents, like MP3? MP3 was used for years in ways that infringed the patent, and people got away with it because the patent wasn't being enforced. Now that MP3 has market share, the patents are being enforced, but Debian wasn't affected because Debian didn't put MP3 in. (At least, not in the "main" section. MP3 software could end up in "nonfree".)

Debian's rules are basically a promise to me, to you, and to everyone that Debian will always be free. So tell me how the rules have "nothing to do with promoting 'freedom'."

Re:Great, just drive more people from your distro.

[draxredd]

Debian isn't about freedom, it's about anal pedantic legalism.

you mean, like michael jackson ?

Re:Great, just drive more people from your distro.

[m50d]

They increase freedom overall. Would you say the first amendment restricts freedom? After all, it's a rule.

Re:Great, just drive more people from your distro.

[marcosdumay]

Debian said KDE was illegal, and suddenly, KDE's problem become public. That was a necessary step to have it fixed, as it is now. Now, Debian is making GFDL and Mozilla's problems public, maybe Mozilla will not fix it (it is not so harmfull), but you can bet that Debian move will lead to a new GFDL.

Re:Great, just drive more people from your distro.

[Brandybuck]

Actually it was Redhat (as in GNOME) who first declared KDE to be illegal. Only Debian believed them. Everyone else who looked at the issue dismissed the fearmongering.

But the damage has been done. Even as recently as two months ago Debian was on the kde-core mailing list claiming that the QPL was no longer a Free license, despite RMS' assurances that it is.

Luckily we have...

[MooseMuffin]

https://addons.mozilla.org/extensions/moreinfo.php ?id=31

Re:Luckily we have...

[RickPartin]

Too bad it doesn't work on newer versions of Firefox :-(

Re:Luckily we have...

[Plaid Phantom]

Just find a repack. Try here. I'm pretty sure that's it. If not, google it.

Mandriva

[mboverload]

Lindows > Linspire
Mandrake > Mandriva
Firefox > ?

Why can't OSS just pick a name and stick to it?

Re:Mandriva

[Anonymous Coward]

Firefox > Internet Navigator

Are you IN?

Re:Mandriva

[vivek7006]

Both Mandrake and Lindows were forced to changed their names. They didnt do it for fun

Re:Mandriva

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh, so was phoenix, err, firebird.

Re:Mandriva

[Man in Spandex]

more like Firebird > Firefox > ?

Re:Mandriva

[Anonymous Coward]

More correctly:

Phoenix > Firebird > Firefox > ?

Re:Mandriva

[phoenix.bam!]

Mandrake changed it's name because of a merger I believe.

Re:Mandriva

[zakezuke]

Lindows > Linspire
Mandrake > Mandriva
Firefox > ? HotDog!

Re:Mandriva

[McGiraf]

netscape explorer?

Re:Mandriva

[advocate_one]

Mandrake changed it's name because of a merger I believe.

mandrake were having to change their name anyway because it conflicted with "Mandrake The Magician"...

Re:Mandriva

[Ziviyr]

Firefish!

Logo won't need much change then.

Re:Mandriva

[Man in Spandex]

and I say this without the slightest lack honesty, I think it's a fabulous name! o_O

Re:Mandriva

[dtfinch]

Phoenix > Firebird > Firefox > Deer Park

Re:Mandriva

[Anonymous Coward]

Lindows > Linspire
Mandrake > Mandriva
Firefox > Firspiravia?

Re:Mandriva

[Jugalator]

Deer Park isn't a browser code name, but a Firefox 1.1 build code name, like Firefox 0.9 was One Tree Hill, or 0.8 was Royal Oak.

The reason it's now more visible in the builds is because the Mozilla Foundation didn't want users to accidentally use Firefox 1.1 alpha in the belief it would be more complete; it has nothing to do with browser naming.

Re:Mandriva

[ozmanjusri]

Firefox > ?

Browser.

Why not? It's no worse than calling a word processor "Word".

Re:Mandriva

[John Bokma]

Firefrog :-)

Re:Mandriva

[Brandybuck]

The didn't change their name until this year, immediately after merging with Connectiva. They did NOT do a year earlier after that ruling.

Re:Mandriva

[FireFury03]

Browser.

Why not? It's no worse than calling a word processor "Word".

Or appeal to the mass public and call it "The Intarweb"...

Re:Mandriva

[FooBarWidget]

"Why can't OSS just pick a name and stick to it?"

You seem to have totally forgotten why Firefox changed their name in the first place.
Phoenix -> Firebird was because Phoenix (the BIOS maker) asked them to.
Firebird -> Firefox was because the name conflicts with Firebird the database.

What? Do you think they change name just for fun?

Re:Mandriva

[zebs]

Or appeal to the mass public and call it "The Intarweb"...

How about Intarweb Explorer? No?

Re:Mandriva

[swv3752]

I still fail to see why an OSS Database could not share a name with a F/OSS Browser. It is somewhat ironic that the Firebird database would not share a name, yet uses the MPL license.

Thunderbird

[jdray]

Well, at least they didn't name it Mad Dog 20/20. Everyone would recognize that as a straight ripoff of a name.

Re:Thunderbird

[flacco]

Well, at least they didn't name it Mad Dog 20/20.

i hope this doesn't have a ripple effect.

Re:Thunderbird

[Talez]

Not unless the next version is a dashboard widget :D

Re:Thunderbird

[RubberDogBone]

Don't you mean Mad Dog %20/%20?

(shameless attempt at humor. Yes I know what MD2020 is, thanks. I've seen Top Secret.)

Re:Thunderbird

[tomstdenis]

You can have multiple users of words like that so long as they don't compete [hint: Apple ... before itunes].

That and I don't see why they care. Spend more time developing and less time lawyering.

Tom

Re:Thunderbird

[Kiryat Malachi]

No, see, they have a steely reserve of will to avoid any further changes, even at the expense of a lawsuit or being attacked by someone with a Colt .45; they thought about a logo change, putting the text into an Olde English font, but decided that they were better off making it a camo logo instead.

Firefox tm policy and Debian tm policy v. similar

[Chuck Chunder]

As far as I can see the Firefox trademark policy isn't fundamentally different from Debian's own trademark policy.

If you are distributing what Debian distribute you can call it Debian. If you want to do something different, call it something else.

Isn't that essentially what the Firefox trademark policy says?

ThunderFox and

[JohnnyGTO]

FireBird oops that won't work. Ok Foxbird and ThunderFire anyone?

Re:ThunderFox and

[njcoder]

how about Notie ;)

Re:ThunderFox and

[Anonymous Coward]

I've got one word for you

Thundercougarfalconbird

Re:ThunderFox and

[Anonymous Coward]

HAHA. This is fucking hilarious. You guys are comedic geniuses. Don't stop!

Re:ThunderFox and

[Anonymous Coward]

You're just upset that you don't have that much eagle.

Re:ThunderFox and

[Phexro]

I'm putting money on it's name being changed to "Immolated Canid."

That, or Birdfoxthunderphoenix.

Re:ThunderFox and

[l0b0]

Nah, too close to the new suite name, Sunderfox.

Re:ThunderFox and

[kfg]

So what the hell is wrong with conflagrantvulpine?

KFG

This is going to happen again.

[merdaccia]

Why do I have the sinking feeling that we're all going to be sitting here in ten years time, reading about the Godzilla Foundation dispute over ScorchedBadger and LightningParakeet?

Re:This is going to happen again.

[ari_j]

Nah. Slashdot will probably just post this story again in ten years and call it good.

Re:This is going to happen again.

[Linker3000]

I vote for Internet Explorizer - or IE for short.

Re:This is going to happen again.

[IHateEverybody]

LightningParakeet

I know you're joking but that would be such a cool name for a PDA based browser....

How about...

[PsychicX]

They could try, FieryTrademarkLaw. Or FireFucked. Or FireGenericUnusedAnimal. Or even FireTrademarksSuck. FTS for short. "FTS" really rolls off the tongue just right...

Re:How about...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, we know "FireTiger" is right out, since This SNAFU.

Re:How about...

[sik0fewl]

"FTS" really rolls off the tongue just right...

Which means it's probably trademarked.

I'm sure something like QZX is still available, though.

Re:How about...

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the "Quantum-Zoo Xenographics" browser?

Re:How about...

[dwclifton]

Now you're quoting Frank Booth, who was a very sick man indeed...

Re:How about...

[Anonymous Coward]

When I read FTS, I think it stands for "Fuck this"

I really dislike these source-less zdnet articles

[Anonymous Coward]

So I'm interested in reading the actual discussions on the debian mailinglists - because I have this strange quirk where I actually find them interesting.
So, google site:lists.debian.org firefox trademark - nothing since february, all of which has long since been resolved. So much for "recently criticised".

Could we please just stop linking to zdnet/cnet/... articles here on /. ? They're worse than useless.

Thunderbird not registered?

[Anonymous Coward]

[evil laugh] It is now [/evil laugh]

Several suggestions

[Anonymous Coward]

Firefox should be changed to "Internet Explorer." It's basic enough, tells everyone what it does. For thunderbird, I'm thinking we call it "Mail." After all, that's pretty much what Thunderbird is.

I hope those names aren't taken.

Re:Several suggestions

[Krimszon]

Internet Explorer is taken, how about just Internet, or maybe Internets?

Re:Several suggestions

[Anonymous Coward]

Mom? What are you doing posting on /.?

May I suggest...

[AnObfuscator]

... a Leonardo Da Quirm replacement name:
Super-fast-and-cross-platform-and-expandable-free- web-browser.

I think that just rolls off the tongue, don't you?

Re:May I suggest...

[zergl]

SFACPAEFWB?
Doesn't roll quite of the tongue...

Free Internet Rendering Explorer For OS X-Compatibility.
(the X standing for Cross ;))
Now how about that?

Greets, Zergl (Just remembering Leonardo's Enigma :))

solution....

[Anonymous Coward]

don't bundle the damn browser. end of fucking story.

Now that's how you win a browser war!

[JudgeFurious]

Rename your browser a few times just to keep the general public too confused to ever really adopt it. If that looks like it's not going to completely do the trick then make a point of choosing some of the stupidest names for the program that you can possibly find.

Firefox is literally too good to have this stuff keep happening to it. This is what I call a damn shame.

Re:Now that's how you win a browser war!

[xiaomonkey]

If that looks like it's not going to completely do the trick then make a point of choosing some of the stupidest names for the program that you can possibly find.

e.g going from Mandrake to Mandriva?

Re:Now that's how you win a browser war!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what I call a damn shame.

"Damn Shame" ?!?!

No offense, but that name sucks. I'd rather just stick with "firefox" and wait until someone actually threatens lawsuit.

Re:Now that's how you win a browser war!

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no way to win a browser war.

Whenever one browser comes out "on top," as it were, it is the whole Web that loses.

It'll Be Registered Shortly

[Anonymous Coward]

Checking the USPTO's website, it appears that the FIREFOX mark will be registered shortly.

The mark was published in October of 2004, meaning the trademark examiner had approved it other than the required statement of use.

The examiner, after there were no oppositions filed, issued a notice of allowance, basically saying, "the mark is O.K., but you need to show use before registration will issue."

And on June 7th, the specimens of use that Mozilla submitted evidencing use were accepted. The acceptance letter stated:

"The Statement of Use (SOU) filed for the trademark application identified above has been accepted. This acceptance means that the mark will register and the registration certificate will issue in due course barring any extraordinary circumstances."

So, in the U.S. at least, FIREFOX (the mark) is good to go.

Re:Naming thread

[Anonymous Coward]

How about: Phirephox or Feenicks

Fire Fish

[Pan Sola]

keeps the FF shorthand, and hopefully original d-:

or Fire Frog, Fire Fetish, Fire Your Boss...

Re:Naming thread

[haystor]

Call it Flamebait.

Re:I really dislike these source-less zdnet articl

[savala]

Although I completely agree with the parent that ZDNet articles are worse than useless, there has been recent discussion on the debian mailinglist. Don't know why it's not in google yet (too recent), but the thread on debian-devel starts here.

Re:I really dislike these source-less zdnet articl

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe (at least in this case) zdnet is more up to date than Google?

http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/06/msg01 160.html

Re:Naming thread

[Anonymous Coward]

Phirefox

I don't see what the big deal is...

[_undan]

Debian wants to exert an interesting amount of control over what they package. That's fine. In my opinion, it's a bit control-freaky, but that's their thing, and they're welcome to it. They're allowed.

Mozilla gives away products. It also gives away the source for those products. It doesn't mind people making alterations to it's products. It just wants you to not call it the same thing.

That's not such a bad thing.

I wouldn't want to install Debian, only to find out that the version of "Firefox" is installed isn't the same as the version I could get from Mozilla.

Where's the problem here, honestly? Call it "Mozilla Firefox - Debian Community Edition" or "Debian Web Browser - Based on Mozilla Technology"

Or just distribute the original thing in it's original form.

Greedo shot first. Didn't we learn our lesson about messing with previous releases?

Re:I don't see what the big deal is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Distributing the original version is not possible for Debian since Debian, and Firefox included, is available for far more architectures than what Mozilla itself has. Also, distributions can't accept to never use any patches because of potential security issues.

That said, Mozilla has granted Debian permission to use Firefox trademark because they believe that Debian will do a good job about packaging it and making only sensible alterations where necessary. The problem is, for some Debian developers, that the permission to use the Firefox trademark is not transferable to downstream users who might want to make their own versions of Debian-packaged Firefox (think other Debian based distributions). Personally, I'd just use the quite well recognized name and let others change the name if they want to make their own Debian-based Firefox packages, or ask for permission to use the trademark themselves (which won't be problem for major Debian-derivatives like Ubuntu).

Re:I don't see what the big deal is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Listen you, Greedo didn't shoot at all! And you can't just change a movie and then redistribute it to everybody and then deny the validity of the first version... ...oh, wait.

Re:I don't see what the big deal is...

[Nothinman]

That's fine. In my opinion, it's a bit control-freaky, but that's their thing, and they're welcome to it. They're allowed.

It's called integration and QA. Debian developers put a lot of time into making their packages work well with the rest of their system and a lot of times this requires changes to the upstream source. For instance, the Debian XF4.3 package in sid currently has almost 200 patches applied to it. It's a good thing, it's what makes Debian feel like a complete system and not just a mish-mash of random packages.

I wouldn't want to install Debian, only to find out that the version of "Firefox" is installed isn't the same as the version I could get from Mozilla.

Depends on your outlook. Security patches for instance. Debian has a strict policy in not allowing new major versions of packages into stable, so if a security hole is found in FF the FF maintainer will fix it in the FF version in stable and upload that version instead of the new version from Mozilla with the fix and who knows whatever other changes.

Where's the problem here, honestly? Call it "Mozilla Firefox - Debian Community Edition" or "Debian Web Browser - Based on Mozilla Technology"

Brand recognition. If Debian all of a sudden doesn't include FF when other distributions do, people will skip Debian because they won't know that "Debian Web Browser" is really FF. And I doubt they'd be able to use your two examples because the terms FireFox and Mozilla are probably not usable once you change the source.

Re:I don't see what the big deal is...

[RedWizzard]

Greedo shot first. Didn't we learn our lesson about messing with previous releases?

I think what we learnt was that not all patches make things better.

Re:I don't see what the big deal is...

[FireFury03]

Mozilla gives away products. It also gives away the source for those products. It doesn't mind people making alterations to it's products. It just wants you to not call it the same thing.

That's not such a bad thing.

And indeed it's not a bad thing - it prevents you getting multiple slgihtly different versions of the same program, which would truely confuse people. What's more, if you needed to modify it in a trivial way to make it work with your distribution, I'm sure you could negotiate with the Mozilla Foundation about the use of the trademark - just because the name is trademarked doesn't mean they can't negotiate the use of the trademark on 3rd party products.

Re:I don't see what the big deal is...

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing about some Debian developer backporting Mozilla security fixes makes me nervous. Who's to say they didn't botch it up? There are quite a few security problems cropping up, some with fairly involved fixes. Mozilla Foundation basically supports only the latest versions of the products - I trust them more.

And if people notice problems, I bet most people will head to bugzilla.mozilla.org to file bugs, rather than Debian's bug system, causing all kinds of confusion.

Re:I don't see what the big deal is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting question, had it not been for the fact that th mozilla foundation already declared that they trust the debian developers enough to give them a blanket permission to use the name firefox. This is not what it's all about.

Re:I don't see what the big deal is...

[m50d]

It's not control-freakery, it's what makes the project useable. The reason people say apt-get is so good is not because apt-get is so good, it's because the Debian packagers make damn sure their packages are following Debian guidelines. If they've improved it, or just modified it to fit in with Debian, I want that version, not the mozilla foundation project. I think they'd be forced to choose a different name that didn't have Firefox or Mozilla in it at all. They could distribute it as the Debian Web Browser, but they'd rather not, since users know and want firefox. As far as greedo, that's completely against the whole open source idea, the right to fork is at the heart of everything Debian stands for.

Re:I don't see what the big deal is...

[Rutulian]

Problem is, Debian as a distribution often tweaks the packages it distributes. If there are security patches or bugfixes in later versions that need to be backported, they will sometimes do that. If changes need to be made so the package compiles on all architectures, they will usually do that. In the case of packages like XFree86 (XOrg) and the linux kernel, they apply a standard set of patches that haven't been merged into the main tree (yet).

I don't know how strict the Firefox trademark is, but if it prevents Debian from doing things that Debian normally does to make sure things interoperate seamlessly in their distribution, then that can be a problem. It's not like they are trying to make changes to Gecko or the UI. They just tweak here and there as any distribution does.

Re:I don't see what the big deal is...

[releppes]

Depends on your perspective. I think Debian is very much control-freaky. In some ways that's good. As some have argued, being a control freak provides a base of consistancy. And consistancy is good!

However, I tend to think Debian mucks around too much with the system, packaging, tools, licenses,....you name it. They have a strong presence in the free software world (my definition of 'free' not theirs) and I think they abuse that power. If they want to distribute their own special browser, then let them. I myself only want to run a product called Mozilla Firefox if it comes from Mozilla. If the code is tweaked, then call it 'The Debian tweaked Browser'. In my mind, once they touch the code, it's not a true Firefox Browser anymore. It's a forked project.

Oh, and I prefer the pkgadd so much more. It's faster and more stable and it comes with my favorite OS (NetBSD).

UK Trademark

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the Wikipedia entry on Mozilla Firefox, the Mozilla Foundation has licensed the trademark from the UK owner. I never heard anything about this before, so does any have confirmation of this?

Re:UK Trademark

[_undan]

Go to Help -> About Firefox...

"Some trademark rights used under licence from The Charlton Company."

Re:Firefox tm policy and Debian tm policy v. simil

[sik0fewl]

In other news...

The Debian development community is currently hotly debating whether the Debian Project's strict trademarks policy violates Debian's social contract.

Oh, boy! I can't wait to see how this one turns out!

No!

[Tofino]

So you're saying that if you name your products after famous consumer products or services, like say Firefox (the movie, among other things), and Thunderbird (the TV show, again among other things), it's a copyright violation? Surely this violates some free somethingorother! Don't these people with prior rights to the name and the fame (such as it is) gained therein have ANY rights?

NO! Say the free rights folks, as their things are free(tm)(r)(c)(wow) and must be exempt from all laws! What were the previous rightsholders thinking? Capitalist running dog aggressors of the capitalist working class, every one!

Re:No!

[sum.zero]

i don't know if firefox the movie can be called famous. not even in russian. ;P

and trademarks tend to be limted to the specific industry. hence apple computer and apple music [think beatles].

sum.zero

Re:No!

[localzuk]

That isn't the argument at hand here. The argument that I would put forward is that the prior examples have no rights as these names are used in their respective segments of the software market - without prior usage of the trademarks. Example - Kodak have the trademark 'Gold'. This stops people creating camera film named 'Gold'. It does not stop people creating software called 'Gold'.

Re:No!

[tedrlord]

Or, you know, they could be naming them after the actual firefox and thunderbird, which is where all those other things get the names, too. Hell, I'd have never connected that puppet show with the mail client, and I have to say I've never even heard of that movie.

The main problem I see is that these Mozilla guys keep using generic and unintuitive names for their software. When I hear "firefox" or "phoenix," in no way would I automatically think of a web browser, or a software program at all. "Thunderbird" just makes me think of a car. Hell, Mozilla was the internal project name for the Netscape browser. There's a reason that they don't use project names as the release name at software companies.

That said, I really don't want to see another reason that these firefox guys have to change the browser name. They could have picked a bit better, but now that it's got name recognition, we gotta stick with it.

Re:No!

[FireFury03]

When I hear "firefox" or "phoenix," in no way would I automatically think of a web browser, or a software program at all.

Because "Outlook" certainly sounds like an email client and "Excel" just makes you automatically think of a spreadsheet... And infact, how do "Cheerios" tell you they're a breakfast cerial? Please...

Re:No!

[Mant]

This is about Trademarks, not copyright. You copyright a creative work, not a name.

It's quite OK to have a film called something and a web browser with the same name. They aren't in the same field, so that is allowed.

Re:No!

[tedrlord]

Because "Outlook" certainly sounds like an email client and "Excel" just makes you automatically think of a spreadsheet...

Um, yes, they really do. Outlook is a calendar and scheduling program, in addition to other things. Hence it manages your "outlook," see? Excel works on two levels. The spreadsheet program increases your productivity, hence you excel, plus you connect it to the spreadsheet cells. I think they're really bland names, but they're the kind of thing business people and general users love.

Other examples: Oracle is a repository of knowledge, Quicken speeds up your budgeting, Photoshop allows you to (obviously) work on photos, even Netscape, which isn't a word, suggests traveling through internet vistas. People get degrees to come up with this stuff.

Brendan

P.S. "Cheerios" refers to the "O" shaped pieces of cereal, and suggests that they're a fun and "cheery" way to start the morning.

Re:No!

[FireFury03]

People get degrees to come up with this stuff.

Powerpoint? Google?

P.S. "Cheerios" refers to the "O" shaped pieces of cereal, and suggests that they're a fun and "cheery" way to start the morning.

"cheery" "morning"... nope, those words never belong that close together :)

Re:No!

[pomo monster]

He's right, you know. The browser's merits aside, "Firefox" is an uninspiringly bland, ugly, generic, and all-around shitty name. "Safari" is great (reminds you both of "Surfin' Safari" and the jungle of the internet); "Internet Explorer" is about what you'd expect from Microsoft, but still conveys meaning; "Opera" may be inexplicable but at least it doesn't sound like the brainchild of some 16 year old overclocking suburbanite.

BTW, "Google" is a combination of "go" and "ogle," and indeed the name connotes a sense of looking thanks to its similarity to "goggle." A stroke of genius if you ask me. And PowerPoint is a presentation program that helps you make points. Powerfully, one would hope, but I agree it's a lackluster name (certainly not up to snuff with "Keynote"). Still, it's better than "Firefox."

Re:No!

[tedrlord]

I couldn't have said it better myself.

I've thought about it a little, and the difference is that the commercial software packages have names that appeal to the customers, while projects like this have names that are targeted mainly to the developers. "Firefox" was a last minute name change reminiscent of phoenix. "Phoenix" was Mozilla rising again from ashes. "Mozilla" was the internal project name for Netscape, and it was referring to a killer, godzilla-like form of Mosaic. I can't remember about Mosaic.

These names make sense when you follow the history, and they give some drive to the developer team, but when shown to regular people it just founds funny and confusing. Firefox is doing pretty well anyway, but a more serious name would really help with credibility.

Clint Eastwood!

[Boss Sauce]

...I have never heard the term Firefox before the Firefox browse...

I liked this when I was 12-- HBO used to show it all the time:
"A pilot is sent into the Soviet Union on a mission to steal a prototype jet fighter that can be partially controlled by a neuralink."

1984-- a very good year-- Macintosh first appeared, Firefox on HBO, and Airwolf on CBS. Best... tv show theme... ever.

Re:Clint Eastwood!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ditto on the best TV theme evar. Though the Knight Rider theme is pretty good, too.

Re:Clint Eastwood!

[j0nkatz]

There was even a video game made for that movie.

Re:Clint Eastwood!

[marcello_dl]

Knight Rider's theme is cool indeed... and it doesn't directly steal from kraftwerk, as Airwolf does ("trance europe express", anyone?). Personally I also like Space 1999 theme, jumping from funky to orchestral.

Re:Clint Eastwood!

[unitron]

You might want to look for the books "Firefox", "Firefox Down", and "Winterhawk", all by Craig Thomas and all featuring Mitchell Gant as the main character.

His other books are good, too.

Re:Clint Eastwood!

[hyc]

Good choices, all. Airwolf got me interested in helicopters; before that I thought they were just ungainly oversized bugs. But hey, a flying machine that can go supersonic and still turn on a dime, armed with cool missiles and armor - that's slick. Especially since most of the technology they showed was actually feasible to mount into a helicopter. (KnightRider, on the other hand, was always just something to smirk at...)

Hm, I gotta get hold of the Space 1999 DVDs, it's been ages since I've seen Barbara Bain...

Re:Clint Eastwood!

[Anonymous Coward]

Despite the link between electronic music and the "trance" genre, that would be "Trans Europe Express", ok?

Re:Clint Eastwood!

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh, several times I'd see it in the movie guide, then tune into the movie, and find out that's not it at all. Turns out it's "Foxfire" which is about something TOTALLY different. :-)

Re:Clint Eastwood!

[Naosuke]

I can't believe no one mentioned The A-Team!

Re:Clint Eastwood!

[Anonymous Coward]

"A pilot is sent into the Soviet Union on a mission to steal a prototype jet fighter that can be partially controlled by a neuralink."

Must... think... in... XUL...

Re:Clint Eastwood!

[marcello_dl]

Indeed :D

Re:I really dislike these source-less zdnet articl

[Anonymous Coward]

that is odd, you think it would be on "legal". The lates there is in March http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/03/msg00 010.html/

EVERYTHING is about money.

[CyricZ]

Everything is about money. Even open source software. Never forget that fact.

Re:EVERYTHING is about money.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, everything is about intrinsic value. Capitalism and socialism falsely assume that this property applies only to money, which is why they don't work so well. Other things beside money do have intrinsic value -- but not that can be meaningfully measured in pounds, shillings and pence.

There is a small but growing proportion of society that is recognising the inapplicability of money to all situations. Still, while the Old Rulers have power, they will want to do anything they can to keep the Old Systems which benefit them in place.

I thought trademark was specific to a trade.

[bersl2]

And that a mark can also be defined by use. Has anyone ever heard of a "Firefox" in those two countries, that is even computer-related? What is the time limitation on trademark disputes in those two jurisdictions?

Re:I thought trademark was specific to a trade.

[imdx80]

used to work for a company called firefox, wrote novix for novell. (They were bought by FTP software). Not sure if they'll have any trademarks.

eh

[Anonymous Coward]

Firefox is literally too good to have this stuff keep happening to it.

Firefox isn't that good. Opera owns it on Windows, Konqeror is a hell of a lot more standards compliant on KDE, and Firefox on OS X is a joke (seriously, why do they even bother with an OS X build?).

99% hype, sez I.

Re:eh

[Anonymous Coward]

you must be new here

Re:Naming thread

[0racle]

HotSmallMemberOfTheCanidaeFamily

And FF continues to gain marketshare in Europe

[UnapprovedThought]

Just saw an article on Le Monde (in French) saying that FF now accounts for 14% of internet traffic in Europe overall, with anything from 7% (Lithuania) to 30% (Finland) in individual countries. It seems kind of amazing to me that in Germany it has achieved 24%. Is this the fastest new product acceptance in history? (Chime in if you can think of a faster /bigger one).

The trouble with so much success is that people are going to come out the woodwork claiming trademark issues. And I can only wonder what will happen when it reaches 50%...

Re:And FF continues to gain marketshare in Europe

[njcoder]

"The trouble with so much success is that people are going to come out the woodwork claiming trademark issues. And I can only wonder what will happen when it reaches 50%..."

And they're going to try and get their grubby little hands on all this money free software is makeing.

wait.....

Re:And FF continues to gain marketshare in Europe

[b374]

I thought those numbers were exagerated until I looked at the browser statistics for the sites I currently handle. None of this sites are geek, nerd or even IT related and FF is responsible for 7-10% of all traffic in the last few months.

Re:And FF continues to gain marketshare in Europe

[FireFury03]

And they're going to try and get their grubby little hands on all this money free software is makeing.

I think you can still sue for damages, even if the defendent isn't making any money can't you? And like it or not, the Mozilla Foundation _does_ have some money.

Re:And FF continues to gain marketshare in Europe

[Anonymous Coward]

The rate at which MS Internet Explorer was accepted over (the previously dominant) Netscape Navigator was truly amazing.

It reached nearly 100% usage in what, a few years? Scary.

Re:Naming thread

[sava]

ph3arp0x

What's in a name

[TripHammer]

How about, "The browser formerly known as Firefox"

with, "we're gonna' browse like it's 1999"

Re:What's in a name

[Professeur Shadoko]

You might as well call it...

the browser who says Ni !

Re:Naming thread

[Anonymous Coward]

Wolfspark
Lighthawk

Call it WKEA

[Anonymous Coward]

For 'We Kick Explorers Ass'.

It also happens to be the name of the Hawaiian sky god W'Kea. How's that for portentious (or pretentious ;-)

J.Bur

Fishing line

[XanC]

I read somewhere (Invention & Technology, maybe?) that nylon fishing line was the fastest adopted technology.

Cotton needed frequent replacement, and nylon was cheaper than cotton (and didn't wear out). Next time you needed new line, you bought nylon.

What about the GFDL?

[jesterzog]

A few weeks ago, I installed the autoconf package on my Debian system, only to discover that there was no documentation included in the standard /usr/share/doc/autoconf/ location. After checking, I discovered that it'd be recently removed, because Debian considers the GNU Free Documentation Licence -- the main documentation licence promoted by the FSF -- as a non-free licence. (Debian has concerns about how it'd work in DRM environments. The Free Software Foundation doesn't agree.)

Luckily in that case, there's now an autoconf-doc package in the non-free section of Debian, and I installed that. What confuses me, though, is how Debian expects to cope in the future if it doesn't accept something as the GFDL, which is widely accepted as the Free Software Foundation's GPL-for-documentation, and used in a lot of places related to open source. All of the KDE help files, for instance, are distributed under the GFDL. Debian hasn't cut them yet, but does this mean that it won't be including them as soon as someone realises?

I really like Debian and I have no plans to stop using it unless it stops being possible to do what I want. I'm impressed by the project's dedication to being so specific about licences, but sometimes I wonder how much of that will eventually come back to haunt it.

Re:What about the GFDL?

[Phexro]

Debian is definitely pedantic about licenses, but I think that's better than having license issues come back to haunt them in the form of a lawsuit.

Re:What about the GFDL?

[Rizzer]

There are a couple of "bugs" in the GFDL which can be cleared up readily enough, for instance the question of distributing free documentation on DRM'ed media. There are also some more fundamental questions of freedom, centred around the GFDL's "Invariant Sections", which prevent you adapting that part of the document according to your own needs.

You can read a bit more about the issues at
http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statem ent.html
Note that this is not an "official" statement, it's a draft which raises the concerns that some, not necessarily all, of the Debian developers have.

Negotiations continue, we hope we can reach the point where the GFDL documents can reside in Debian without protest or argument.

Re:What about the GFDL?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lawsuits are, of course, what every other Linux distribution is plagued with. Not.

Re:What about the GFDL?

[Nothinman]

All of the KDE help files, for instance, are distributed under the GFDL. Debian hasn't cut them yet, but does this mean that it won't be including them as soon as someone realises?

Yes, I would assume that they'll go into non-free in an upcoming major release.

I'm impressed by the project's dedication to being so specific about licences, but sometimes I wonder how much of that will eventually come back to haunt it.

The opposite is more important. Having Debian not get into a bad position because they're violating licenses is worth making you have to install some packages from non-free.

Re:What about the GFDL?

[Anonymous Coward]

The GFDL is a bad licence, it's not just the DRM it's the invariant sections and the fact that's incompatible with the GPL both ways. AFAIK no one except RMS has defended the GFDL (who by the way is on non-speaking terms with Branden after having lost the argument on the GFDL, claming that Branden was rude), go figure.

Re:What about the GFDL?

[Brandybuck]

In Debian's favor, the GFDL really is a crap piece of licensing. It allows you to keep parts of the document proprietary, an act that would have RMS suffering from conniption fits if it were done with software. Unfortunately, the FSF has done a good job of proselytizing the license, so that most people use it out of a knee jerk reaction, instead of actually examing the license for suitability.

Against Debian, however, is their anal approach to licenses. They are not about freedom, they are a support group for the terminally legalistic and argumentative.

Re:What about the GFDL?

[Florian Weimer]

Debian is definitely pedantic about licenses, but I think that's better than having license issues come back to haunt them in the form of a lawsuit.

Debian's decision to distribute something is usually not a legal decision. Some developers fear that documentation licensed under the GNU FDL (even with no invariant sections) compromises the free software ideals Debian subscribes to. This is the public justification, the real reason is likely some desire to inflict harm on the FSF, Richard M. Stallman, Debian, or all of them.

I wouldn't worry too much about the licensing wars. Debian has comitted itself to keep to the non-free section. For a typical end user (who owns an x86 machine), there are few practical differences between the main and non-free section.

Re:What about the GFDL?

[Anonymous Coward]

What confuses me, though, is how Debian expects to cope in the future if it doesn't accept something as the GFDL


To my mind, there's an obvious assumption here. In order to need to cope with the future, a product must first have a future.

I'm not a debian / linus stalwart and now only have 1 debian installation (down from 4). If somebody (FINALLY) fixes the package management problems with all Linux distros, I'll have 0 Debian installations. I only knew that Sarge was out because some technophile madman kept track of it. He, also, won't be installing any fresh Debian boxes.

There's probably a bunch of mail routers that would bestow endless praise on Debian, if they could think or speak. But AI hasn't been invented yet ... and even if it had, debian wouldn't support it for so long the distro would be dead.

Yes yes, debian is kept stable for good reasons. But how stable is stable enough?

Re:What about the GFDL?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Against Debian, however, is their anal approach to licenses. They are not about freedom, they are a support group for the terminally legalistic and argumentative."

This is not fair. Debian wants to "get it right" and produce a distribution that is truly (and unchallengably) free, and any equivocal packages will be clearly labeled as "non-free", even though the "non-free" packages are very nearly free in all senses except those of the FSF and the DFSG.

Calling it "anal" doesn't mean it isn't important. Licensing, trademark, and patent issues really are going to bite OSS in the ass if people aren't careful, and I appreciate Debian for working through some of these issues.

Re:What about the GFDL?

[hiroko]

What confuses me, though, is how Debian expects to cope in the future if it doesn't accept something as the GFDL

You've answered your own question - Debian provides the core free section so you can choose to have a completely FLOSS system, but if you can accept some transgressions of Debian's strict policy, you can add the additional non-free section to your sources list.

Re:What about the GFDL?

[m50d]

The FDL is not widely accepted. I'd go so far as to say the people who use it are a) the FSF and b) people who haven't read it and thought the name sounded good. Every non-FSF site talking about licenses for documentation says don't use the FDL, it sucks. The reason Debian sees it as non-free is because it simply is non-free. Debian has said they'll move all non-free docs out of main and rewrite them themselves. Quite often the Debian man pages are better than the originals.

Re:What about the GFDL?

[Speare]

Depending on your views, they may be meticulous or overbearing or merely concerned about licenses, but I don't think Debian is particularly bookish or academic about them.

Re:What about the GFDL?

[mattdm]

Depending on your views, they may be meticulous or overbearing or merely concerned about licenses, but I don't think Debian is particularly bookish or academic about them.

Is this a non sequitur or do you just not know what "pedantic" means, having apparently only looked it up in a (poor) thesaurus? I'm just wondering.

Re:What about the GFDL?

[starseeker]

I wish Debian would promote Apple's Common Documentation License - it feels the closest to a "GPL for documentation" of any of the ones I've read to date (IANAL.) Does anybody know why that one isn't more widespread?

Re:What about the GFDL?

[runderwo]

I've yet to see someone demonstrate to me what is non-free about a GFDL document with no "Front-cover text" and no "Invariant sections".

Re:What about the GFDL?

[schleyfox]

Not to start a flame war on the trite Debian vs. Gentoo debate but...
I think for a desktop system handling licences/trademarks (and release schedules) like gentoo makes more sense (look at their default package repository, its almost thepiratebay :p)
But for servers and other things of significant importance, slow release and pedantic licencing is a bit more logical.
Whatever floats your boat I guess

It would just look kind of bad to exclude one of the more popular desktop OS apps from a distribution that already has desktop problems due to lack of release (and even worse to limit the downstream use of firefox on deb derivitives, the very derivatives that make debian useful for the desktop)

Oh well, I really should get back to compiling something, isn't the gentoo way to not be compiling something

Re:What about the GFDL?

[Phleg]

In this case, a third party has the ability to reduce the "free-ness" of the material, which is unacceptable.

Imagine writing a howto. Now somebody else comes along and adds lots of useful, relevant content to the howto. However, they mark all of the document as invariant and begin redistributing. They've just reduced the "free-ness" of that document, which is a big no-no.

Having anyone at some point be able to take the truly free and modifiable work of someone else, then hijack it and make it non-free (as this would surely be) is a big no-no.

Re:What about the GFDL?

[runderwo]

But the DFSG doesn't care about the ability to make it non-free. If that were the case, Debian would not include BSD-licensed software in 'main'.

Re:What about the GFDL?

[Anonymous Coward]

It allows you to keep parts of the document proprietary, an act that would have RMS suffering from conniption fits if it were done with software.

The anti-Stallman zealots just can't help themselves can they?

Documentation is not the same as software as you well know. It is appropriate therefore to treat them differently when it comes to copyright. RMS has made no secret of his beliefs in this regard and your attempt to smear him as being inconsistant tells us more about you than it does about RMS.

With regards to the wisdom of having parts of the document proprietary, it makes perfect sense in certain situations. For example, if you decided to release something you wrote under a licence that permitted anyone to alter it freely, what is to stop me or anyone else to alter what you wrote sop as to subvert your intent but kept your name attached to it. I don't suppose you'd be too impressed that your views were being misrepresented.

Does it make sense to make parts of computer software documentation proprietary? Probably not, but the GFDL is meant for more than just that and you don't have to mark any parts of the documentation as proprietary if you don't want.

I see you've copyrighted your web page so I assume you can see the wisdom of treating software and the written word differently. Why you insist on castigating RMS for something you do yourself is beyond me.

Re:What about the GFDL?

[metamatic]

For example, if you decided to release something you wrote under a licence that permitted anyone to alter it freely, what is to stop me or anyone else to alter what you wrote sop as to subvert your intent but kept your name attached to it.

What's to stop me making a version of emacs that wipes your files, leaving Stallman's name all over it, and releasing it? Nothing.

So, why is that freedom somehow important to software, and not to documentation?

I see you've copyrighted your web page so I assume you can see the wisdom of treating software and the written word differently.

The FSF uses copyright. The GPL is based on copyright law. You apparently have no idea what you're talking about.

Re:What about the GFDL?

[Brandybuck]

I see you've copyrighted your web page so I assume you can see the wisdom of treating software and the written word differently. Why you insist on castigating RMS for something you do yourself is beyond me.

I am not claiming that my webpage is free. I am not claiming you can take it and modify it and redistribute it. On the other hand, RMS does precisely this with the GFDL. He says the license is Free as in "Free Software", but it does not even meet his own definition of Free.

As for the documentation I write, that which comes with my software, it's 100% Free and Open and unrestricted.

Re:What about the GFDL?

[Catharsis]

Debian is definitely pedantic about licenses, but I think that's better than having license issues come back to haunt them in the form of a lawsuit.

Is it? No... really. Is it actually better? I mean, shit, has anyone done any kind of risk/cost analysis before jumping to some kind of a conclusion like this? The amount of stupid shit done in the name of overextending good principles throughout history can not be overstated. It's like working for the Government. It seems there are two camps -- those who do work and those who actively prevent it under any pretense possible. -pvh

Re:What about the GFDL?

[Brandybuck]

Calling it "anal" doesn't mean it isn't important.

That's what the obsessive compulsives tell me when they wash their hands twenty times a day. It's what they say when they Lysol their whole environment. It's what they say after they've induced constipation by not using the public toilet. Do they really end up being less sick than the rest of us? And if so, is it worth the price?

Re:What about the GFDL?

[cas2000]

> Imagine writing a howto. Now somebody else comes
> along and adds lots of useful, relevant content
> to the howto. However, they mark all of the
> document as invariant and begin redistributing.
> They've just reduced the "free-ness" of that
> document, which is a big no-no.

that's not possible.

the primary subject matter of a GFDL document CAN NOT BE MADE INVARIANT.

only Secondary Sections can be made invariant. The GFDL has the following to say about it:

A "Secondary Section" is a named appendix or a front-matter section of the Document that deals exclusively with the relationship of the publishers or authors of the Document to the Document's overall subject (or to related matters) and contains nothing that could fall directly within that overall subject. (For example, if the Document is in part a textbook of mathematics, a Secondary Section may not explain any mathematics.) The relationship could be a matter of historical connection with the subject or with related matters, or of legal, commercial, philosophical, ethical or political position regarding them.

The "Invariant Sections" are certain Secondary Sections whose titles are designated, as being those of Invariant Sections, in the notice that says that the Document is released under this License.

The "Cover Texts" are certain short passages of text that are listed, as Front-Cover Texts or Back-Cover Texts, in the notice that says that the Document is released under this License.

> Having anyone at some point be able to take
> the truly free and modifiable work of someone
> else, then hijack it and make it non-free (as
> this would surely be) is a big no-no.

the BSD license allows this, and it is considered DFSG-free. several other free licenses also allow it.

in other words: regardless of how undesirable this is, it is not prohibited by the DFSG.

Re:What about the GFDL?

[jesterzog]

if you decided to release something you wrote under a licence that permitted anyone to alter it freely, what is to stop me or anyone else to alter what you wrote sop as to subvert your intent but kept your name attached to it. I don't suppose you'd be too impressed that your views were being misrepresented.

Your local laws may vary. In New Zealand, however, we certainly have laws that would be available for prosecuting anyone who publishes something under someone else's name without permission, particularly if it's done with malicious intent to discredit someone and it's not obvious that it's faked. (If it was obvious, it might be treated as satire.)

I think there's part of our copyright law that deals with it, but I've been unable to find it when flipping through quickly. I'm not sure how this would all apply with the GPL -- there is definitely a right in NZ copyright law to object to derogatory treatment of a work.

Re:What about the GFDL?

[Phexro]

Your argument is utter rubbish, and you're probably a troll, but what the hell. RMS uses Debian, and he applied to be a Debian developer.

Debian largely subscribes to the same ideals as RMS. I have no idea how you can legitimately claim that Debian "wants to inflict harm" on anyone, particularly RMS or the FSF. Debian distributes massive amounts of code from the FSF, Emacs (which was written by Stallmann), and a vast collection of GPL'd packages.

The decision to distribute or not is based on the reading and interpretation of the license, and takes place in the open, on debian-legal. So far as I know, Debian has not refused to ship anything unless there was a license issue or a compelling technical argument not to.

Firefox and Clint Eastwood

[atcurtis]

Does anyone remember the FireFox film staring Clint Eastwood where his character is a US Air Force test pilot who is on a mission to steal a prototype Russian jet-fighter.

FireFox and FireFox Down are two books by Craig Thomas of which the film is based upon the first book. Both fun to read - I'd reccomend it if you liked the old cold-war inspired novels, although the 2nd book was written after cracks started appearing in the Iron Curtain.

EVERYTHING is about money-Heaven.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I do hear that there's this lone group that doesn't need money. Somehow they're related to Sasquatch. Nobody's gotten anything but a grainy look at them.

I'll take that challenge...

[WidescreenFreak]

Quick! someone find a way to blame this on MS!!

Will do.

If Microsoft didn't make such a bug-ridden browser that was so unethically engrained into the operating system and if Microsoft didn't abuse their monopoly power to run Netscape into the ground, there would not have been such a demand or need for Firefox to have even been created, hence there would be no naming issues. Had Microsoft played fairly, Netscape might still be a very viable browser (unlike now for all intents and purposes) and Firefox would probably not exist.

So, as shoot-from-the-hip as you enjoyed being, the whole reason for Firefox being as popular as it is (and one could argue necessary in the first place) can indeed be traced back to Microsoft.

Re:I'll take that challenge...

[eln]

Yes, Microsoft gave its browser away for free, which was a major problem for Netscape's market share, but to be fair, Netscape 4 was a big, bloated, bug-ridden pile of shit, and it certainly didn't help its own cause. At the time, IE was by far the superior browser.

Re:I'll take that challenge...

[WidescreenFreak]

If you ask people why they have used and still use IE, I'm sure that the vast majority of people will say that "it came with the operating system", not that it was better or worse. Add onto that their security problems, virus issues, spyware issues and so forth, it's no wonder that Firefox is as popular as it is.

So, regardless of how bad Netscape was, Microsoft, their tactics, and their lack of security are still the primary reasons why Firefox was deemed to be necessary and was therefore created. If IE wasn't forced on everyone, if IE wasn't integrated into every nook and cranny of Windows, and if IE didn't install spyware because I right-clicked on a picture, do you really think that Firefox would be here? (I'm beging facetious on the spyware due to a right-click, of course, but it's sadly not far from the truth.)

Re:I'll take that challenge...

[drsmithy]

If you ask people why they have used and still use IE, I'm sure that the vast majority of people will say that "it came with the operating system", not that it was better or worse.

Which might work except during the biggest period of IE's growth, the relevant versions (3.x and 4.x) weren't actually bundled with Windows - they had to be downloaded separately.

Re:I'll take that challenge...

[Anonymous Coward]

I personally used it because it was free, and because Netscape had turned into bloatware. Now although undercutting on price like that can be seen as an anti-competitive move also, do you really think that you should be forced to pay for a browser?
Why stop there, anyway? Why not go back and blame IBM and Intel for ramping up the personal computer revolution, I mean if home computers weren't around nearly as much today, do you really think that Firefox would be here?

Re:I'll take that challenge...

[HishamMuhammad]

IIRC, Windows 98 came with IE4.

Re:I'll take that challenge...

[reflective recursion]

the reason for firefox's existence has no relation to IE or Navigator. IE and Navigator are about as relevant to Firefox's existance as NCSA Mosaic and SpyGlass are.

I really get sick of these damned revisionists. IE was never forced on anyone! People started downloading it because NS was a big bloated piece of proprietary lock-in FECAL MATTER. Jesus jumping-jack christ. Netscape was posed to completely fucking KILL the standardized web if MS was not around. They were not open source friendly and certainly not open standards friendly. Remember the BLINK tag? You can thank Netscape for that and many more proprietary extensions that did massive harm to the infant web and *severely* stunted the growth and acceptance of CSS.

IE was playing catch-up for years. When IE was finally better, Netscape committed suicide (their management imploded). Feeling the need to place blame because they could never figure out how to turn a profit with Navigator or their web server, they cast the stone at Microsoft. Probably to establish confidence with what remained of their shareholders--they had to do something.

Re:I'll take that challenge...

[Anonymous Coward]

All of which highlights Netscape's apparently losing battle with a product, Internet Explorer, given away by its rival Microsoft (NASDAQ:MSFT). You cannot compete with free giveaways. And you cannot cry foul if you also built your business on giving away your own product free, Navigator, but now charge for it since it's a large part of revenue

I just want to put an end to the myth that IE undercut Netscape by giving away their browser. Navigator started out free and was free for a long time before IE even existed... myth-busted.

Re:I'll take that challenge...

[drsmithy]

IIRC, Windows 98 came with IE4.

Indeed it did, however, IE's major boom time was the ~12 months *before* Windows 98 was released, when IE4 was only available for download. This was the real bloodbath for Navigator, when their marketshare dropped from something like 90%+ to less than 50%. Going back a bit further, IE's marketshare was basically nonexistant until IE3 was released, when it captured about 10% of the market off Navigator, without being bundled with Windows.

Re:I'll take that challenge...

[kaens]

Still though, today - right now - if you ask most people why they use IE, they will respond with "It came with the computer" or "What's IE, oh you mean the internet".

Re:I'll take that challenge...

[Anonymous Coward]

Troll? Jeez, the mods here are clueless.

Re:I'll take that challenge...

[packetl0ss]

Remember the BLINK tag?

Sadly, Mozilla Firefox still supports that tag, even in its latest version, 1.0.4.

Re:I'll take that challenge...

[PeterPumpkin]

It was bundled by ISPs however. AOL browser anyone? It required IE to be installed, and that came included on a separate floppy if I recall correctly. I forget if it was IE 2 or 3. I still have that floppy somewhere around here...

Re:I'll take that challenge...

[PeterPumpkin]

IE was never forced on anyone! People started downloading it because NS was a big bloated piece of proprietary lock-in FECAL MATTER.

Not really, regular people don't care about proprietary lock in, or fecal matter. The reason IE grabbed big marketshare in the beginning was that it was a programming platform, and it was required by different pieces of software. And so, it came bundled with that software...AOL, Quicken, etc. People started using what was there for them already. Netscape "imploded" when the management decided that they too needed to be a programming platform to survive, and Gecko was born out of the ashes of Netscape 5. But, it was too late at that point, and all over when IE was bundled with Windows.

If you can't think of any Genuine Microsoft Innovations(TM), there you have it.

Re:I'll take that challenge...

[reflective recursion]

Nothing (other than Windows95 perhaps) depended on IE when the browser wars were still going on (IE 4.0 and earlier). People actually downloaded IE 4 because they were still using Windows95 and didn't have it. It really was better than Navigator 4.x. In terms of features, speed, and even stability. I was using IE 4 at this time because I really did not care for where Navigator was headed.

Numbers do not lie, either. People were *using* IE more than ever. They could easily have IE simply installed with Quicken or whatever and still download Navigator 4.x, but many did not. And if you think it's because of laziness, you would be wrong. People would upgrade to IE 5 and 6 because they are actually using it and want the newer version. You must recall all the hoopla in just about every PC magazine and the newspapers about the "browser wars." It was always about the user and had nothing to do with dependencies.

management decided that they too needed to be a programming platform to survive, and Gecko was born

No. Netscape was dead long before this time. In reality, they were dead upon release of their 4.x series. They just didn't have the foresight to see it. They had millions of users, but did not figure out a way to exploit that little detail. It is common business sense to not start a business without a business plan. Netscape did just that and suffered the consequences. Something like 1/10th of all new businesses fail and many do for that reason alone. The odds were *always* against Netscape and it had nothing to do with Microsoft.

Don't assume MS has made money on the Internet. I'm sure they really took it in their pocketbook with the entire IE series. The only benefit to MS is they keep users and have a platform for developing Internet-aware apps. The monetary gain MS received from IE would likely not have been enough to sustain Netscape for any period of time. Even the AOL/Time Warner conglomerate is having trouble making sense of what Netscape should be.

Re:I'll take that challenge...

[fulldecent]

Actually, yes.

Running IE on wine for me doesn't cut it :-p

Re:I'll take that challenge...

[WidescreenFreak]

Fuck you, troll mod!

That felt good to say.

Fire, fire, fire!

[Anonymous Coward]

I nominate that quote from Beavis.

Can be heard (for a while) at:
http://www.fortunecity.com/lavender/loxwood/38/fir efire.wav

Approved in the US, will register shortly

[Animats]

The US registration status for Firefox is "The final review before registration has been completed for this Intent to Use application and it will register in due course."

The Firefox trademark was allowed for registration on 2005-04-15. It's currently in the "publication and issue section", where they print up the nice certificate with the seal and ribbon and send it to the Mozilla Foundation, print the notice in the Official Gazette of the United States Patent and Trademark Office and send it to all Depositary Libraries, "enter the trademark upon the Principal Register", and do all that 19th century stuff.

But it's been a done deal since April.

Re:Approved in the US, will register shortly

[b374]

and the Firefox name may already be taken in the UK and Germany

I just checked with the WIPO database and it seems that indeed there are 2 trademarks registered with the name of Firefox and none of it would conflict with a possible Mozilla Foundation trademark:

First one:

IRN: 848226
Owner: Polo Expressversand GmbH & Co. KG

Clasess:

09
Protective helmets.

18
Travelling bags, hand bags, trunks, valises, backpacks.

25
Clothing, footwear, headgear.

Countries: DE, AT, CH, PL, GB

and second one:

IRN: 786072
Owner: MST International AG

Clasess:

01
Chemicals used in industry, science, photography, as well as in agriculture, horticulture and forestry; unprocessed artificial resins, unprocessed plastics; fertilizers; fire extinguishing compositions; tempering and soldering preparations; chemical substances for preserving foodstuffs; tanning substances; adhesives used in industry.

37
Consulting in the installation and maintenance of fire retardant installations; installation and maintenance of fire retardant installations.

Countries: DE, CH, ES, FR, IT, TR

Neither of these 2 conflicts with a Firefox trademark presuming that the Mozilla Foundation doesn't try to register it in any conflicting class.

Re:Naming thread

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashbrowzilhawkfirexploroperaticnaviguider 9000 MX

More like...

[Anonymous Coward]

More like, Debian faces trademark issues.

MD5

[RickPartin]

I have the ultimate solution to all of our trademark issues. Simply use MD5 hashes instead of the original names. d6a5c9544eca9b5ce2266d1c34a93222 is catchier than Firefox anyways.

Re:MD5

[eclectro]

I have the ultimate solution to all of our trademark issues. Simply use MD5 hashes instead of the original names. d6a5c9544eca9b5ce2266d1c34a93222 is catchier than Firefox anyways.

Alternatively, they could go with this catchy number: 13B10\/\/5C|-||_|N!<Z

Lirefox?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what I'd go with.

MOD PARENT UP

[Spy der Mann]

Ok now the mods are definitely on pot. Firesomething was a plugin created (as a joke) after the Firebird -> Firefox name change. It allows you to pick up weird names like firegoat, waterbird, etc.

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[dawnread]

Indeed - Install here

Posted from Mozilla Webpanda

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[DenDave]

ROFL!

Lets just call it Joe.

surf the web with Joe.

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[ragefan]

Lets just call it Joe.

surf the web with Joe.

Hmm, too late I think. Joe already exists.

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[Skraut]

I'm more of a fan of Bob
Anybody else remember the last software named Bob??

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[idonthack]

Hmm, too late I think. Joe already exists.
So spell it
._/ 0 3

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

... "Bob". No, but I remember Bobette.

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[Curate]

Firesomething was a plugin created (as a joke) after the Firebird -> Firefox name change. It allows you to pick up weird names like firegoat, waterbird, etc.

I think they should rename it to Watergoat. I doubt there would be a scandal over that.

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

... "Bob". No, but I remember Bobette.

What's that? Bob's gay brother?

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Call it JOB. Joe's Own Browser. Browsing is all we do at work anyway, so Job is a perfect name.

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[Ced_Ex]

... "Bob". No, but I remember Bobette.

What's that? Bob's gay brother?

No... isn't "Bobette" when some guy gets his hot dog cut off?

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[japhmi]

Call it JOB. Joe's Own Browser. Browsing is all we do at work anyway, so Job is a perfect name.

No, JOB should be for "Job's Own Browser."

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[apoc.famine]

By default. With a little editing, you can have a browser as cool as mine - Mozilla Plush Minotaur. I highly recommend it. It has tabbed browsing and anti-popup features. It's almost as good as Mozilla Stalwart Tendriculos, which I was using yesterday...

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[50m31sl4sh.]

It allows you to pick up weird names like firegoat, waterbird, etc.

Firegoatse.

*ducks*

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[FireBreathingDog]

No good! Joe is already taken! It's a UNIX text editor...

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[DenDave]

okay okay... lets call it... uhmm.. lets call it....
CORNHOLIO!

Re:Firefox tm policy and Debian tm policy v. simil

[stevens]

The Debian development community is currently hotly debating whether the Debian Project's strict trademarks policy violates Debian's social contract.

Oh, boy! I can't wait to see how this one turns out!

On a serious note, I can't wait to see either. I would hate to see this:

$ apt-get install mozilla-firefox
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree... Done
E: Couldn't find package mozilla-firefox
$

Inside information suggests

[Parelius]

Look out for the release of Fireferret 1.1 this summer!

OH NO...

[Spy der Mann]

Why can't OSS just pick a name

Not recursive acronyms please!

"PAF Ain't Firefox!" *shudders*

I'm gonna have nightmares tonight... :-S

I made it!

[Anonymous Coward]

FIRST POST!!!

Why Are You Still Defending This Crap

[bohemian_observer]

They're borrowing code and stealing ideas from everywhere, so why bother? Lets sue, and sue them hard over trademark, GIF/JPEG or anything available. These idiots're only helping yellow monkeys to get their dirty hands on cheap free IE/Office/OS. Open source is more evil then any of you muppets could even comprehend and WILL lose U.S. money, lots of money, lots of jobs and lots of corporate wealth. One day you will wake up and see you extinct, all your hard programming stolen in a cheap China computer box for 10$.

Re:Why Are You Still Defending This Crap

[Eunuchswear]

Oh fuck, he's found us out.

Send round the hit squads.

Or the men in white suits, whatever.

would this be a solution?

[at_slashdot]

The probably should distribute Firefox with Firesomething extension enabled...

Doesnt PhoenixFire make more sense anyway?

[mike518]

honeslty, i like the ring to phoenixfire...

no clue on thunderbird...

For Once, I'm Glad I Use Windows

[Anonymous Coward]

Who cares about copyright or trademarks when you can just steal all the shit you could ever dream of?

Piracy Forever!

that reminds me of something....

[jannesha]

What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet

-- Act II, scene ii, Romeo and Juliet, Wm. Shakespeare

Re:that reminds me of something....

[Anonymous Coward]

Not if you called it shit-weed.

How about FireCrotch and ThunderCock?

[tyrione]

I doubt they've been taken.

Re:How about FireCrotch and ThunderCock?

[Anonymous Coward]

Results 1 - 10 of about 3,550 for firecrotch
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,210 for thundercock

But latin would be ubergeek for the names and both Firevulpes and Thunderaves return 0 matches.

Wikipedia: Vulpes, Aves

dweebians

[Anonymous Coward]

They are the biggest whiners, first SCO, now FireFox.
And to think I almost wasted my time and bandwidth hosting a mirror.
Sheesh.

Change the TM application

[mindhaze]

Why wouldn't they just apply for "Mozilla Firefox", and "Mozilla Thunderbird"??? Granted, it's not as keen, but the industry will truncate either to the latter word, and they'll have the appropriate TM. This shenanigans is kinda dumb. :)

New name for Debian

[aliebrah]

Maybe Debian could rename their Firefox to MPL/GPL/LGPL/Firefox.

Re:New name for Debian

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you could rename yourself to funny.

Does it really matter?

[concept10]

I don't give a shit what it's called as long as it's stable and secure. They can call it Jabba the browser and I will still use it over anything else.

Sigh...

[Deliveranc3]

This is pathetic... Firefox changed it's name from Firebird because of trademark crappalazoo!

But they forgot to trademark firefox? Whoooopppps!

It's interesting because the Debian trademark and the firefox trademark are actually WORTH something now, it pays to distribute software with those names!

It appears one of the flaws of open source has been exposed.

Re:Sigh...

[sinewalker]

This is a flaw of trademark law, not of the open source development or distribution models...

I feel a huge rant comming on about trademarks and how stupid they are, especially when a company "goes global" and attempts to assert it's "rights" on new local companies in other contries... Witness Target when they came to Tasmania and had a fight over the pre-existing Targett shopping company there, or the fight over "Ugg Boots" in the Blue Mountains in New South Wales, Australia...

Then there was the stupid fight over "Tiger" that Apple (rightly) won -- but they didn't attack Sun over Java 1.5 Tiger...

Trademarks have no place in an international market. Period. The owners, and everyone (including me!) should just get off their band wagons.

Re:Sigh...

[RedWizzard]

But they forgot to trademark firefox? Whoooopppps!

They didn't forget to trademark Firefox. They just haven't had it issued yet, though it soon will be. They also may not be able to get the trademark in every country (what a suprise!).

Re:Sigh...

[CortoMaltese]

Well, it actually is difficult to pick a good name these days that can be a registered trademark around the globe.

IMHO, it is quite interesting that some of the most popular Microsoft products have the simplest names, names that most likely could not be registered: Windows, Office, Word, Internet Explorer. If the Windows vs. Lindows dispute had gone to court, Microsoft might have lost their best known trademark. (Of course, IANAL.)

The open source world is filled with clever names, but it is uncertain whether this is actually a good thing for mainstream software, such as Firefox. Not only because of trademark issues, but also because the name convoys no information whatsoever about the program to Joe Sixpack.

Re:Sigh...

[hhghghghh]

IMHO, it is quite interesting that some of the most popular Microsoft products have the simplest names, names that most likely could not be registered: Windows, Office, Word, Internet Explorer. If the Windows vs. Lindows dispute had gone to court, Microsoft might have lost their best known trademark. (Of course, IANAL.)

Head on over to microsoft.com and try to find a mention of Windows(R). You won't. You'll only find mentions of "Microsoft Windows", as a phrase, being a trademark. Likewise for Word.

Re:Sigh...

[bjelkeman]

The trick is to not only trademark a simple name like Firefox, where you may run into problems when you have to deal with a global naming space, but also go for something more specific, such as Mozilla Firefox. You have a much bigger chance of being successful.

Re:Sigh...

[bheer]

Incorrect. Windows is a registered "®" trademark of Microsoft in the US and Japan, and in most other countries (search for Windows on these pages).

You're right about Word though, and MS is always careful to call it Microsoft® Word.

Re:Sigh...

[Anonymous Coward]

They also don't necessarily need to. There is protection in most countries* for distinctive brands, known as passing off, which needs no registration. So they will be able to defend their marks and name, though it would be best to get hold of that trademark asap.

*The countries where there isn't such protection are very few, and most of them have greater things to worry about than TMs, like revolutions.

Re:Sigh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok let me get this striaght... Mozilla foundation gets burned b/c Firebird was a GM car for 30+ years and owned the name. Then they're naming their email client and pick a car that Ford has built for the past 50 years! Why don't they come out with an IM service and name it Corvette? Can they think of a name (or "borrow" one) from someone other than the auto industry?

Time to make some money...

[Pao|o]

Attention all Squatters

Open season on open source software. Register & Trademark now in your local country to get a lot of $$$

Re:Naming thread

[phalse phace]

TBFKAF (The Browser Formerly Known As Firefox)

Re:dweebians,(coowbuoy kneelz spel czech her

[Anonymous Coward]

Correction,
"whiners"="weeners"

noszbmw BTW
http://images.slashdot.org/hc/69/9ef3b7d48b7e.jpg

Re:Naming thread

[waferhead]

How about... Mozilla.

OK, Perhaps Mozilla v2.

I'm pretty sure they would have THAT covered, it's better known, and is bloody obvious.

Highly unoriginal, I know, but the only really sane thing to do.

Fire extinguishers

[Juan Rey]

Here in Spain, it is a trademark for fire extinguishers.

(By the way "UNIX" was also a trademark for fire extinguishers)

Debian Free Software Guidelines

[Chuck Chunder]

State, in part:

4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code

The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form _only_ if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code. The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software. (This is a compromise. The Debian group encourages all authors not to restrict any files, source or binary, from being modified.)

Emphasis mine. It seems to me that the "issue" here has already been pretty much covered. The intent seems clear. Although it's not considered ideal Debian seems to have accepted that authors may want derived works to carry different identifiers of one sort or another.

Maybe it's just a pity it doesn't say:

The license may require derived works to carry different name, version numbers and/or trademarks from the original software.

Re:Debian Free Software Guidelines

[Anonymous Coward]

This is true. The question being entertained by Debian atm is, however, whether Debian itself needs to rename Firefix in its distribution. Not because they have to (they have permission from Mozilla not to change it, even if they apply security patches) but because anyone downstream that wanted to change a Debian source package of Firefox and redistribute it would have to change the name at that point.

Debian is traditionally very leary of exercising any course of action that is not available to their downstream users. Since Debian has many high-profile downstream users, this is probably an appreciated priority.

Re:Debian Free Software Guidelines

[vanicat]

The fact is that mozilla have given an autorization to Debian to ship a modified firefox under the firefox name. Should we use this authorization, and so use a right that our user doesn't have, or should we ship it under a different name ?
See DFSG #8:

License Must Not Be Specific to Debian

The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's being part of a Debian system. If the program is extracted from Debian and used or distributed without Debian but otherwise within the terms of the program's license, all parties to whom the program is redistributed should have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the Debian system.

Re:Firefox tm policy and Debian tm policy v. simil

[foonf]

As far as I can see the Firefox trademark policy isn't fundamentally different from Debian's own trademark policy.

It might very well be the case that if Debian were to be included recursively in itself, perhaps with some minor modifications and updates, there would be a similar conflict. They sidestep this issue since they don't have to make the whole distribution available on the same terms that included software is, at least as far as trademarks are concerned.

Re:Naming thread

[waferhead]

And in a leap of wild abandon, call the bloody e-mail program something like... Mozilla MAIL.

No, you got it wrong...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Schnappi" No doubt about it

hmmmm

[utnow]

mozilla is scary... it reeks of early internet (when i think mozilla the first thing that pops into my head is a 28.8 modem). They were right to move away from it IMHO. And it seems to be getting enough name recognition so that semi-non-tech people tend to know what it is. Now thunderbird is another story all together... FireFox Mail? lol Thunderbird is a car right? ;o)

Re:hmmmm

[Flaming Foobar]

mozilla is scary... it reeks of early internet (when i think mozilla the first thing that pops into my head is a 28.8 modem).

I think you really mean NCSA Mosaic, not Mozilla.

reverse the name

[Jaro]

you could just reverse the name.

xoferif - sound a little like ferret, just more elegant
driberif - sounds good, i think
xineohp

at least these name won't be already taken

Re:Firefox tm policy and Debian tm policy v. simil

[tonsofpcs]

Don't some sequential versions include the prior?

Holier than GNU

[Per Abrahamsen]

Those Debian guys impress me, it take something to make RMS look pragmatic and moderate on freedom issues.

Trademark in the UK

[squoozer]

Has anyone actually bottered to check the PTO in the UK before going off on one about how Firefox is already registered?

If you go over there and have a little look you will notice that the mozilla foundation has filed their trademark application and none of the other firefox applications directly conflict with it. There are others in class 9 but none of them specifically list web browser (which the firefox applicaiton does) as part of the application. The biggest threat, IMHO, is 2007607 which bangs on about software but from an analysis point of view. IANAL but I would say that firefox will probably be granted the trademark in the UK at least.

Re:Trademark in the UK

[pbhj]

I am not a trademark lawyer (or examiner) but as an ex-patent examiner in the UK I occassionally had to raise trademark issues.

I gather that only one registration in any one class is allowed otherwise the origin of goods under the mark in that class would be unclear. If I sell software for accounting labelled "firefox" (RTM) (eg "Best Accounts from Firefox") and you want to sell other software labelled "firefox" then a consumer might think that your goods originate at my quality software house. You'd be trading on my name.

So, if there are class 9 registrations (see http://www.patent.gov.uk/tm/notices/regular/classn ov04.htm and note that's the class for computer stuff) that have been granted then I don't see how Mozilla can make another class 9 registration for the same name.

Of course, if Mozilla have been using the mark for trading for an established term preceding the registration then I gather that they have rights to continue to use that mark (in a limited way?). This is all mute ... looking at the dates ... the E42007607 (Feb 2005) was filed 8 months later than Mozilla's application (June 2004). So it doesn't look threatened ...

But like I said, I don't really know much about RTM.

I found it interesting that Time Warner previously had rights to the trademark (expired 1982).

Use anagrams

[boomgopher]

I like these options using anagrams, they can just scramble the letters on the logos:

For Thunderbird:

Dr Ruth in bed
Red Bird Hunt
Inbred Hut Dr

For Firefox:

Fife XOR
Offer IX
FIFO Rex

Historically (or currently)

[Chuck Chunder]

Which packages are ones which employed or employ licences which "require derived works to carry a different name"?

Did Debian rename them? Perhaps if there's some historical cases of this happening I can relate to the problem might be clearer?

Re:Historically (or currently)

[Anonymous Coward]

Well all the Mozilla Foundation packages, for starters. Apache and PHP are two others. Debian has not renamed Apache and PHP because those organizations don't put out any detailed trademark information and haven't gone after (or stated they will go after) anyone for doing what Debian wants to do.

The reason this issue has come to a head with Mozilla is that they have a very detailed, strict, and public policy regarding the trademark issue. In the more ambiguous projects Debian feels it is acceptable to wait for the projects themselves to complain, and if they don't then everything is great. But when a project puts out such a non-ambiguous statement at the outset, Debian has decided that it can't ignore it.

I know it is difficult to RTFA on this one, but I did because I found it interesting. The discussion being carried out on the Debian lists is very detailed and carefully argued. This isn't just an ivory-tower argument. No one is saying that Debian can't distribute Firefox; that it is Free software is not debated. Whether they can call it Firefox, however, is a very legitimate and important question.

Debian, like many distros, includes small tweaks to Firefox to either make it work better with their distro or to fix security holes. This is especially important to Debian, because they actually backport security fixes to the older versions of packages in their Stable distribution. Therefore Debian has legitimate and unavoidable reasons to be mucking about in old versions of Firefox. Mozilla isn't going to backport, they are just going to distribute a new release.

So the problem arises: if Debian is going to make such changes, can they still call the resulting application "Firefox"? According to Mozilla's published policies, the answer is clearly NO. That is irksome, so Debian has asked them to clarify their position and also requested special permission for the Debian project and its users. Mozilla has responded: a) No one can use the name "Firefox" without specific permission after making updates like the ones Debian must make, b) Debian has Mozilla's permission to use the name even after the changes, because Mozilla trusts Debian not to screw it up, but c) Mozilla does not extend that permission to Debian's downstream users.

So, for Debian to call Firefox "Firefox" would be exercising a privilege not granted to its users. Even in the ambiguous cases of Apache and PHP, Debian is not doing anything its users can't do themselves.

At worst, there would end up being a package in Debian called "debian-iceweasel: The Debian version of Mozilla Firefox(TM), changed to avoid trademark infringment". Debian already uses non-standard icons in the Firefox package because the Firefox logo is copyrighted and non-Free.

Re:Historically (or currently)

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe TeX was the motivation for the "different name" clause. Apache 1.x (but not 2.x) has a similar restriction.

Re:Historically (or currently)

[vanicat]

Which packages are ones which employed or employ licences which "require derived works to carry a different name"?

Severall tex/latex file have such a licence, for example /usr/share/texmf/metafont/base/plain.mf
has the following licence:

Unlimited copying and redistribution of this file are permitted as long as this file is not modified. Modifications are permitted, but only if the resulting file is not named plain.mf.

Note that this is less troublesome for tex/latex than for many other thing because you can put into a file an information saying that when tex want to read the file "foo" it should use the file "bar" instead.

Did Debian rename them?

Well, as we have the same right than anybody over those file, we don't have the same problem than with firefox. So no we don't (or maybe if we have modified them, I don't know).

Perhaps if there's some historical cases of this happening I can relate to the problem might be clearer?

I've heard that there exist someone who have tried to make a software shipped by debian by giving a licence making the software free as long as it is part of debian, and non-free otherwise. But for what I know, it may be only an urban legend, I've no link nor name.

Re:Historically (or currently)

[P-Nuts]

Debian already uses non-standard icons in the Firefox package because the Firefox logo is copyrighted and non-Free.

On Gentoo, you don't get the cool Firefox logo if you build Firefox from source. The neatest way to get the logo back is to create a Portage overlay, copy the ebuilds for Firefox there, and modify it with IUSE="branding java mozsvg" and mozconfig_use_enable branding official-branding in the appropriate places in the ebuild, put branding in your USE flags, and emerge. Technique described on Gentoo Wiki

Hu?

[sieb]

I don't get why these GPL and other such nonsense licenses are such a pain.. Why can't they just say, "here is my work, you can modify it, but you have to give me props, and you can't make money off it by claiming its yours." Debian is going to start running out of stuff for their releases if they scrutinize every single package for "what ifs"..

Similar

[dbcad7]

The situations you describe are similar, however it is possible to create different variations of installers to install debian packages, and you would still be distributing a debian system, even if one version of your installer was installing KDE and another Gnome

From what I gather, the whole issue that the debain people have with the firefox trademark, is that if you change firefox with a bug-fix the license implies you have to rename it.. Debian was granted permission to do this and still use the firefox trademark in debian systems.. however some at debian feel that the debian versions, first of all need to be able to be used in any linux system, and secondly that if debian can have the ability then any linux distrubutor (no matter how small) should also have the same abilities,, and that it is unlikely that all linux distributors would have such privliges

Personaly, although I admire the moral stance that debian is debating, I don't see the problem. Fix the bugs, submit the fix to mozilla. From here you have 3 choices.. give your users the fixed firefox called firefox with mozilla's blessing, wait for mozilla to distribute your fixed version so you are supplying what everyone else can have, or fork your own debian firefox based browser (I think this is unacceptable to debian though)

I really don't see what is wrong with doing BOTH of the first two choices. support all of linux, but still service your users as quickly as possible.

Re:Similar

[Anonymous Coward]

There may be some changes the Debian project is required to make to ship Firefox. No matter how small, it clashes with the Mozilla trademark policy.

Also, even if they did not need to make such changes, but wanted to release a security update quickly (faster than Mozilla Foundation in case the foundation was pondering on a best possible fix for example), the Debian project would be forbidden to do so by Mozilla's policy.

Re:Similar

[gimpboy]

Actually, the grandparent post mentions an exepmtion that was given specifically to the Debian project. I don't know why thy dont just call it firefox-patched.

Ah.. I think i have it...

[zalt]

Why not call Firefox "COOL, FREE SCREENSAVER.EXE", and Thunderbird "HOT WEBCAM GIRLS OOPS!.EXE" and just watch the adoption rate increase like crazy.

No?

Re:Firefox tm policy and Debian tm policy v. simil

[Feztaa]

No problem then. Just get the FireSomething extension, and you'll be able to do this instead:

$ apt-get install mozilla-poweroyster

No way!

[kevcol]

ThunderPussy!

Re:Firefox tm policy and Debian tm policy v. simil

[thomasweber]

> If you are distributing what Debian distribute you can call it Debian. If you want to do something different, call it something else.

Actually no. If you publish the original Debian, it's an "official release" and you can use the Debian swirl logo together with the "magic lamp". If you make a derived version, it's a "vendor release". You can still use the swirl, but without the "magic lamp".
http://www.debian.org/logos/
http://www.debian.org/CD/vendors/
Please note that on both logos you can use the word "Debian".

The problem here arises because AFAIK the Mozilla Foundation has no such strategy, i.e. there's no name that distributors can take if they change the sources.

Call it FoxFire

[PinkX]

And make Angelina Jolie to be its official face.

Re:Call it FoxFire

[Anonymous Coward]

Even better, FoxxFire. NSFW.

Re:Firefox tm policy and Debian tm policy v. simil

[Anonymous Coward]

If you do, just type:

$ apt-get install debian-iceweasel

FireSomething

[Scarblac]

Dammit, where is FireSomething when we need it! It needs to be updated to be compatible with newer versions of Firefox/Lightningnarwhal/...

My favourite Firesomething name was Mozilla Superkoala, I'll vote for that.

C'mon its simple

[tanveer1979]

Lindows > Linspire Mandrake > Mandriva Firefox > ?

Firefox > Firdiva or if you wanna go the Lispire way, Firefox > Assfire.

Debian Gets What They Give

[Anonymous Coward]

Debian is trademarked. You can take Debian, mess with the code and then distribute it, but you CAN NOT call it Debian.

Firefox is trademarked. You can take Firefox, mess with the code and then distribute it, but you CAN NOT call it Firefox.

If Debian doesn't like being on the receiving end of this, maybe they should change THEIR OWN trademark policy.

Re:Naming thread

[Anonymous Coward]

I suggest Popplers

Re:Naming thread

[b374]

TBFKAF (The Browser Formerly Known As Firefox)

Yeah... then is gonna go for unreadable-symbol-with-funny-shape-looking-like-a- hieroglif browser and in 1 year no one would know what that is...

tm in Germany

[dtietze]

Apparently it's been registered in Germany since 1995! "Firefox" as a trademark for use in computer software, computer consulting, etc. (trademark group 42 in the German trademark system) has been registered in 1995 to "Firefox Communications Limited, Solihull, GB". Presumably these are the same folks holding the trademark in GB.
A short research in the publically searchable database of the German national patent and trademark registry (http://dpinfo.dpma.de/ would have shown that.
Since they trademarks have been registered in 1995, I find it highly unlikely (but not infinitely improbable) that they were registered in order to "cash in" on the Firefox browser popularity.
Mind you, "Firefox" has also been registered by Volkswagen in 2005. So watch out for the new VW Beetle Firefox (with tabbed driver's seat) at a car dealership near you :-))
Dan.

Re:Naming thread

[Zerikai]

How about replacing it with some beautiful symbol ... it could be known as 'The Browser formerly known as FireFox'?

Oh dear.

Re:Firefox tm policy and Debian tm policy v. simil

[Chuck Chunder]

But you still have Debian (the group of people) being allowed to do something other people aren't allowed to.

What is the difference between:

SPI (the trademark holder) allowing Debian (the affiliation of people) to alter Debian (the software) and still use the original mark while not giving everyone else that right.

Mozilla (the trademark holder) allowing Debian (the affiliation of people) to alter Firefox (the software) and still use the original mark while not giving everyone else that right.

To be logically consistant Debian (the group of people) should not be able to distribute the Debian software with the Debian trademark. Debian has been granted management of that trademark by SPI and does not give the same rights to those they distribute to.

If the DSFG stop Debian (the group) using the Firefox trademark because they have been granted special rights to it then it must also stop them using the Debian one.

Just install "Firesomething" extension

[melted]

There you go, problem solved.

Trans Am, sumbitch!

[Anonymous Coward]

They're idiots. The name gets worse every time they change it. Again. Because they were idiots. Again. Last time they changed it. Again.

Trans Am!

In a week's time

[supermarsupial]

Firefox changes its name yet again to ASDHDSFHSDFFF

Simillar trademark problem for thunderbird

[lord_rob the only on]

There was a simillar problem for mozilla thunderbird. When it first appeared in Debian Sid, it was called Mozilla Thunderbird. Now it is called Debian Thunderbird.

This name change was asked by the Mozilla Foundation because Mozilla Thunderbird is trademarked by the Mozilla Foundation and they don't seem to enjoy unofficial builds (i.e. builds that are not downloaded from mozilla.org or one of its mirrors)

So now I use Debian Thunderbird, and I suppose sooner or later I will use "Debian Firefox". So what ? I don't mind at all ..

Re:Simillar trademark problem for thunderbird

[PinkX]

Where did you get that from?

The package in Debian is still called Mozilla Thunderbird on all three current distributions (stable, testing and unstable).

http://packages.debian.org/mozilla-thunderbird

Regards,

Re:Simillar trademark problem for thunderbird

[lord_rob the only on]

Yes sure, I expressed myself badly. I meant the application name in the title bar of the window. It's now Debian Thunderbird and not Mozilla Thunderbird.

Re:Naming thread

[Anonymous Coward]

>>> FireBush

Re:I really dislike these source-less zdnet articl

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry for you. Perhaps you prefer forbes :
http://www.forbes.com/business/businesstech/2005/0 6/16/linux-bsd-unix-cz_dl_0616theo.html
Is linux for loosers ?

They'll use that.

[Anonymous Coward]

It meets their only criteria. It's 1) stupid, and 2) a name already irrevocably attached to something else that they don't know about despite its being well-known worldwide.

...

No, really, it is.

Google...IF YOU DARE!

(You'll be disappointed.)

Re:Firefox tm policy and Debian tm policy v. simil

[OoberMick]

The Debian development community is currently hotly debating whether the Debian Project's strict trademarks policy violates Debian's social contract.

You win again Gödal!

I got a great name...

[Elranzer]

Mozilla Navigator ?

I'm sure the Netscape people won't object, given how much they depend on Mozilla's code...

Given how the Unix version uses GTK...

[Elranzer]

Gonqueror ?

The mascot could be the dog from Elvira: Mistress of the Dark

Once again; it's time for.....

[newr00tic]

...I believe now is the time, -again-, for the re-surfacing of 'Green Hornet' and 'Kato'...

--Seems rather descriptive for what features are therein; you could even make *KABLAAM!* and *POW!* -extensions for each popup/spammail blocked; to think of the endless skin posibilities too!

-Weeh! =)

Is there really any problem with...

[cianduffy]

Gecko Browser? Thats what the Firefox 1.1 trunk builds brand themselves as unless you set the configure switch to show you have the Mozilla Foundations permission. Its a bit weird seeing it build an app called "firefox-bin" thats not allowed call itself Firefox, though...

Is it just me. . .

[munpfazy]

. . . or is their absurdly broad domain name section begging for a mozillatrademarkpolicysucks.org website?

Re:Is it just me. . .

[dtietze]

No, I think it's just you. Dan.

Fire Mosaic

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think mosaic is related to browsing ...

the same mark can co-exist in several industries

[Anonymous Coward]

the same mark can exist in several industries without causing a conflict, provided those industries and marks are somewhat unrelated. for instance, you could have "McCoy Dry Cleaners" and "McCoy Plumbing Service" and neither would probably have merit to try and induce the other to stop using the mark. There are other factors that also affect trademark protection, such as the origin of the work. Fanciful marks are most protected, followed by marks that have no relevance to the actual word (apple computers is a good example of this last type).. and I believe firefox would fall into this category.

whether the scope this instance will encompass all software or just web browsers, would be an issue for someone who is a lawyer (IANAL, I AM AN AC)

also, firefox may have the possibility to claim their mark is actually "famous" .. which is a term afforded to marks that become household terms, and cannot be contrained to industry. Marks such as Kodak, Apple, Microsoft, etc are all good examples of household marks. Whether "kodak dry cleaners" existed long before the Eastman-Kodak corporation is irrellevant; Kodak is now a household word because of Eastman-Kodak, inexorably tied to cameras/film/etc, and thus that company will own the rights to the mark (and ironically, could induce Kodak Dry Cleaners to stop using the mark).

IANAL, and i do agree they should check this stuff more thoroughly before developing a whole product around a certain name, but Mozilla and Firefox are now verging on household-names.. and I would imagine won't have much trouble defending their rights to use those marks.

not again

[Anonymous Coward]

don't change the bloody name again, starting to get confusing, forget the trademark crap

Re:Naming thread

[Anonymous Coward]

The Fighting Mongooses -
I like that name

Hotly debating? Well listen up...

[tod_miller]

Not a troll: For those debian ueber hippies, TRADEMARKS are good, copyright is good (copyleft is also nice!) patents are great! (except the vast majority of ones which are abused - worst one in my gut is the Sony patent for a currently wetware (pun intentded) idea of interfacing with brain. What is this, a sci-fi idea landrush for patents?)

Linux is patented. Before you start casting your sword of pious Freedom around, realise that you should fight the right battles.

Trademarking open source project names (I realise Mozilla are a bit bitchfucky about this) is a good idea, and definately should be done. Open source is allowed to sell itself, marketwise and financial wise.

I don't think debian can be harmed (and debian is just a distro, debian is basically an installer and package manager, and some default wallpapers, like most distros (and lots of packaging of projects) by having 'branded' name open source. What do they want to call Firefox?

Debian Extra Value Generic Browser?

Trademarking is good to promote image of a product that was written in a community.

What I found funny is: Mozilla community wrote Firefox (and i.e. the whole shebang of moving the NS code around, into mozilla, the XUL stuff, etc) YET debian are debating the legitimacy of their trademarking?

I mean, they should flavour their wrods cautiously, not to diminish or reprimand mozilla for choosing their own stance on trademarks, but just to imply their decision unfortunately would not allow them to have this great software, and then, bully for them!

I like debian actually.

apt-get install F1r3F0X0r
(debian release - no trademark)

UK Trademarks

[MrAngryForNoReason]

and the Firefox name may already be taken in the UK and Germany.

As far as already having been taken in the UK goes here is the list of trademarks on 'Firefox' and here is the Mozilla Foundation's application for a trademark.

There don't seem to be any trademarks pending for the 'Thunderbird' name, most of the existing trademarks are held by the ITC Corporation who own the rights to the Thunderbirds tv show and film. There don't seem to be any covering the same fields as Mozilla Thunderbird though, so it does seem strange that no application has been made.

Re:UK Trademarks

[Vo0k]

If the british fire extinguisher manufacturer doesn't have some serious worldwide recognition, then they are protected in their field of work. That means, Mozilla Foundation won't be able to legally produce fire extinguishers, safety/emergency equipment, probably some other gadgets that are considered the same domain as fire extinguishers, but as long as it's software, they can be granted that trademark. In the field of software. Which won't stop anyone from producing Firefox brand birthsday cakes, or Firefox hunter ammo of course. Just no software.

Mod parent up

[tod_miller]

There are some whippersnappers too oung even to remember the Pheonix browser *warm memories gloss over my cateract eyes*, then the Firebird... then Firefox.

Lest we forget. Mod up.

Caterects? I am twenty-bloody-five.

I will check out BackRub for some info on Pheonix.

I can't believe...

[Conanymous Award]

...how difficult this can be. Why don't they just come up with something like Pakcbycovjuch that somebody else doesn't have with 100% certainty.

Ubuntu is a good example. Or then they should try to come up with something that makes people think of the internet when they hear the browser's name. "Firefox" isn't exactly such a name.

What should happen:

[t_allardyce]

Microsoft should completely abandon IE and donate the name to Mozilla, then in return they can include Firefox (now Internet Explorer) maybe slightly modified in Windows with the full support of the Mozilla Foundation, why?

- Most people won't know or care so it would hardly damage Microsoft's reputation, in the tech community it would even give them a boost as a company that does the right thing and embraces the right technology rather than blindly continuing to use outdated crap that doesn't work.

- Firefox is a better browser but it could use some help from Microsoft, possibly with some integration for windows maybe even some speed improvements that could make their way back to the main branch who knows? In any case, the Microsoft branch could be made to look and feel like the old IE so most people wouldn't see a difference - hell they could even disable the pop-up blocker if they wanted!

- CSS and cross browser compatibility would make web developers happy, although probably out of a job because it would now be too easy... ...Ok scrap all that i think it would be best to continue having 4 major browsers (IE, FF, Mac IE & Safari) that clients demand you support and to continue making web design a slow and painful task.

Re:What should happen:

[Vo0k]

Not a fuckin chance.
- MSIE is so tangled in the bowels of Windows that it's impossible to remove it. Too many things depend on it.
- Firefox is Open Source. Microsoft would give a hand and a leg to keep the public from ever learning such thing exists. People use FF, think "Cool, and why is it free?", then they learn about other open source stuff, decide to try it out, learn about the evils of commercial software, and then Microsoft starts to really lose market share. So Microsoft tries to protect your Joe Average from open source products at all cost.
- Microsoft would never admit their product sucked so badly that it had to be replaced with competition. (even if they actually do this, see WinNT)
- The legal obstacles and risks of integrating a Free Software component into a proprietary system are rather high. Not impossible, but it's walking on a thin ice.

New name

[SinaSa]

Proposed new name: Microsoft Windows. Oh wait...

The Real Situation

[Gerv]

I'm the person at the MoFo responsible for the trademark discussion with Debian. Please read my blog post on the subject to get the correct story.

Re:The Real Situation

[Compholio]

Hey, some of us actually do read the article you know :) They should really provide a link to your blog in the blurb so people can get the facts straight.

Re:The Real Situation

[Overzeetop]

Please stop infusing this /. discussion with facts and relevent links. It will only confuse us.

Re:The Real Situation

[Anonymous Coward]

As you might have read here, debian already had a similar issue with its own logo and opted to not ship with it's official logo in main (the one with the bottle) and instead use the swirl (which is free for others to use). I don't see a way for the MoFo out of this unless you get two names/logos, or specify a conformance test of some sort that lets others use the name without prior permission. No one wants an alternative name chosen by debian to be in direct competition with the MoFo trademark, debian doesn't have an IcewWeasle agenda, it's simply not interesting, DFSG free software is. Please reconsider your position.

Another Fire Fox company (in Spain)

[pmagsa]

In Spain there is this company called Fire Fox selling fire extinguishers:
- Original post (in Spanish).
- Original post (Google translated into English).

Re: Is this the fastest new product acceptance

[Anonymous Coward]

What about internet explorer? :D

new slogan

[Anonymous Coward]

Firefox, the other blue 'e'.

Stop the FUD and READ THIS!

[marq00z]

Read at Gerv's blog. So much for the quality of ZDNet journalism. :)

Re:Firefox tm policy and Debian tm policy v. simil

[ISayWeOnlyToBePolite]

This has been debated in debian, and the resolution was to not distribute debian with the original trademark, just the swirl (the other one is with the bottle). See screenshots at: http://shots.osdir.com/slideshows/slideshow.php?re lease=361&slide=41&title=debian+gnu/linux+3.1+scre enshots The're not making up rules for others they don't abide themselves, MoFo has repeatedly been asked to provide for such an alternative but denied it (for obvious reasons)

Thunderbird

[Goth Biker Babe]

Is owned by Triumph Motorcycles both here and in the states. It's licenced to Ford (?) for use on automobiles.

What is it with Debian?

[Aldric]

They seem to spend more of their time complaining than anything else.

Re:What is it with Debian?

[Anonymous Coward]

They're just sore that there are now more Firefox users than Debian users.

Re:What is it with Debian?

[m50d]

They actually care about freedom, not just getting good software for free.

Re:What is it with Debian?

[C_Kode]

Then I say they should just remove it and quit whinning about it. Hell it's not like the internet has stopped working and we can't download it. I'm damn sure most of the Debian users would still download Firefox if RMS.. err Debian didn't include it.

The last sentence was a joke. I know some cannot seem to differentiate a joke from a trollish flame.

Re:What is it with Debian?

[m50d]

By "whining" they might get the mozilla foundation to change it's policy so firefox is free for everyone. Wouldn't that be a better outcome?

Mythical Animals

[PakProtector]

Why don't we just continue the mythical animal trend and call it 'Puma'...

Or Pegasus... Or... What's the name of that mexican lizard that sucks the blood out of all those goats?

SIMMONS:That'd be the Chupacabra, sir!

Yeah. How about it, Mozilla Foundation? Chupa-thingy. I like it. It's got a nice ring to it.

New Name Ideas?

[Entouchable]

1. Mozilla
2. Firebird
3. Firefox
4. ???
5. Profit!!!

Re:New Name Ideas?

[Anonymous Coward]

You left Phoenix off of that list.

Re:New Name Ideas?

[Entouchable]

that's what I get for asking my clueless roommate, and not just trusting i remembered it right, it was on the list for a minute, shoulda googled =P

+5 Insightful

[TuringTest]

It's too sad that such a miopic view of business is so often applied to all the economic field.

Also in Spain

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the Spanish leading manufacturers of fire extinguishers Fire Fox

Re:I really dislike these source-less zdnet articl

[Koroviev]

It's in Google too, much more pleasant to read. Here.

Soviets own Firefox

[Anonymous Coward]

Clint Eastwood owns the Firefox name. He stole it from the Russians in the early 1980's, ;-).

Re:Soviets own Firefox

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Russua, Firefox steals Clint Eastwood!

Mozilla versus the airforce

[rishistar]

Well Mozilla will have to take on the air force now! And not only do they have great big guns on their planes, they also have the secret to disarm any geek...A woman! http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/06/16/woman.thunderbird /index.html

FireFox = Clint Eastwood Movie

[Elitist_Phoenix]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083943/ Directed by: Clint Eastwood Plot Outline: A pilot is sent into the Soviet Union on a mission to steal a prototype jet fighter that can be partially controlled by a neuralink

Trademark registration cost.

[hafniOum]

I am not an IP Specialist but for what I know Registrating a name under a trademark cost hell of a money. Internationnal TM which Firefox should do could cost them more than 15 000$ dollars and trademarked it in the US could cost us about 1 000$ if do it with a n IP firm.

If any specialist could correct me go for it.

haf

The Mozilla trademark.

[Anonymous Coward]

While this is a trademark issue for Firefox and Thunderbird, it has no effect on the "Mozilla Firefox" and "Mozilla Thunderbird" trademarks.

Ha ha!

[Refrag]

No, this really hurts Firefox.

I said "ha ha!"

Debating themselves into irrelevancy

[werdna]

To people in the real world, this sounds crazy. To many of us in the geek world, it doesn't sound much saner. Arguing about what is the name of the thing and then what the name of the thing is called simply doesn't matter -- it doesn't make the software less free!

I can still get the code, modify it and distribute my changes. Who cares what I have to call it? This is a mode of embarassing political correctness -- there is a difference between standing on principles, and exploiting those principles to suit a petty and not terribly relevant political agenda. Debian has crossed the line.

Of course, Debian's policies and decisions "have teeth" only to the extent that software is removed from its distributions. That is fine, so far as it goes. However, when its exclusions are deemed incredible, irresponsible or unprincipled, sooner or later, people are going to become more concerneed, first in the real world and later in the geek world as well, about the lack of functionality of the product, and the reasons therefor.

I could care less what these products are called, and what I am privileged to call it. I understand and acknowledge that a reasonable amount of control is required for trademarks to assure that their goodwill is not diminished. I don't understand the objections, particularly since Debian's own guidelines appear to accept this.

In my view, this "debate" is petty and foolish, and it is a recipe for making the marginalization of "free software" advocates easier for those who oppose the movement. Sure, Debian can live without Apple and Mozilla -- but what about the rest of us, who now may be thinking to ourselves, "why should we?"

Debate yourselves into oblivion folks. Nobody understands this, not because they politically disagree with you, but rather because it is senseless.

Re:Debating themselves into irrelevancy

[thomasweber]

> I can still get the code, modify it and distribute my changes. Who cares what I have to call it?

If you had *read* the discussion on the Debian list, you would have known that this is exactly the point: wether they must rename (better: rebrand) it or wether there's a way around it.

And what about the Debian derivatives?

[salimma]

I'm thinking particularly of Ubuntu. Right now a lot of packages (especially libraries) are auto-imported from Debian unstable, but if Debian keeps splitting off documentation and putting them into non-free it'd be a mess to keep track of.

let's change the name to...

[gallipoli]

Airwolf.

Re:let's change the name to...

[omry_y]

or maybe firechicken.

firefox mods v debian mods

[matt me]

And how many Firefox mods are there out there?
Just the one. Netscape.

Debian?
That's a whole family of Linux distos.

Firefox has a long way to go before it's ever as free or open. Don't know if they're even letting the community maintain the Seamonkey suite.

Re:firefox mods v debian mods

[bradkittenbrink]

Every distribution distributes a patched version of firefox. Nobody uses the vanilla mozilla.org tarballs. There's a lot of "firefox mods" out there.

There you go trying to drag facts into again

[Aaron Pannell]

The facts, although interesting, are irrelevant.

Besides it's alot harder to come up with oneliners about Debian wanting less restrictive policy from software.

Firefox changes name to Debian

[Anonymous Coward]

In an effort to meet Debians' requirements Mozilla drops it's trademark persuit and changes it's name to Debian.

Firefox is a series of books!

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't anybody remember the series of Firefox books from years and years ago ? I think they may have first claim on the name. That was years before there was an internet or even personal computers.

Yet another rename?

[justins]

I know - they could call it "PostgreSQL". I'm sure that's not taken!

Re:Naming thread

[allanc]

I've got one word for you:

Thundercougerfalconbird.

(Blatantly ripping off this guy)

Leonard Of Quirm

[SpooForBrains]

Microsoft supports open source? IE is not forced?

[WidescreenFreak]

IE was never forced on anyone!

Really?? Look at any release of Windows since Win 98 and tell me if any of them don't have IE installed. I also seem to recall a certain Bill Gates saying that it was so engrained with the operating system that it could not be uninstalled. That to me says that even if you're not browsing the web, you still are using IE to some extent and that you have no choice because of its integration. Sounds like the definition of "forced" to me.

They were not open source friendly and certainly not open standards friendly.

Look at how many web pages out there require Internet Explorer because of proprietary ActiveX extentions. So, it's okay if IE requires proprietary code, but Netscape was so incredibly vile when they did the same thing? Also, where did you get the source code to IE? I don't recall Microsoft being open-source friendly either, yet apparently you are giving them a free pass even though there is no IE source code out there that I'm aware of. By the way, IE still is not 100% supportive of open standards either.

Who's being revisionist again?

Trademarks are like copyrights...

[Leadhyena]

in the eyes of the GNU licensing. Most people don't realise that open source depends on copyright in order to protect its right to be freely distributable. If it wasn't copyrighted, then some malicious person would copyright it and then sue the original author for giving it away for free.

The same thing applies to these trademarks. Firefox (Firesomething lol) has to trademark in order to protect itself from parasitic corporate thugs who would whisk the trademark away and turn around the attack in order to force a name change.

I couldn't think of any company who'd want to take trademarks from open source products... who could it be who would want to do this... hmmmm could it be MICROSOFT?

Re:Trademarks are like copyrights...

[man_ls]

I can think of quite a few smaller corps or individuals who might want to do the same, for financial reasons, not even out of ideology.

Red Panda or Ailurus fulgens

[Anonymous Coward]

Two choices for the new name if they have to change it again.

How about JAB n' JAM

[Nonillion]

All this re-naming is getting silly, I suggest they rename Firefox to JAB (just another web browser) and Thunderbird to JAM (just another mail client). That ought to take care of this for a while :)

Fine, there are plenty of Clint Eastwood movies

[Morinaga]

They can steal any number of names besides Firefox http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083943/

There really are a lot of options...

Revenge of the Creature
Play Misty for me
The Enforcer
The Gauntlet
Sudden Impact
Absolute Power
True Crime
Or my preference, Two Mules for Sister Sara. Which could double as a really cool name for a band.

HotDog

[Anonymous Coward]

Firefox > ? HotDog!

Sorry, but HotDog is already a trademarked HTML editor software.

Re:Firefox tm policy and Debian tm policy v. simil

[GoRK]

This is covered as well; If you do this, you are allowed to keep the Debian name but you cannot use the "Official" logo with it. They have a second version for unofficial use.

Namechange even for bug fixes

[Danuvius]

The license may require derived works to carry different name, version numbers and/or trademarks from the original software.

Having read the full debian thread, I can tell you that the problem seems to be that the trademark clause can be used by MoFo as a veto on even minor changes that the Debian Maintainer feels he should be able to make without a problem:

i.e.: bug fixes, security fixes, addition of (debian) trusted root certificates

Which is to say, at this time it is solely due to MoFo's goodwill (Debian having been granted special--but revokable--exemption) that a Debian security-patched Firefox can still be called Firefox.

The opinion from some people is that this is too restrictive--and worse yet there is no publicised criteria for how to gain such an exemption.

Oh... and projects downstream from Debian do not automatically benefit from the exemption either.

Re:Namechange even for bug fixes

[Anonymous Coward]

Good summary. Now, it isn't that we don't understand MoFo's side of this. Obviously they want to maintain some level of control over what kinds of products their trademark is attached to. Otherwise $DISTRO will release a version with a bug that they added, and the headlines will just say "Horrific Flaw in Firefox Kills Users on Load!"

I think the only decent, long-term solution is to name apps at the outset in a way that allows them to be prominently associated with a distributer that might have changecd it. Firefox is actually named very well for this purpose, it just hasn't been used that way to date. The official name is Mozilla Firefox, and the distro name could be Debian Firefox, RedHat Firefox, etc.

If such a naming convention were used across the free software world, then security flaws wouldn't be misreported nearly as easily.

Re:Namechange even for bug fixes

[Danuvius]

Good summary. Now, it isn't that we don't understand MoFo's side of this. Obviously they want to maintain some level of control over what kinds of products their trademark is attached to. Otherwise $DISTRO will release a version with a bug that they added, and the headlines will just say "Horrific Flaw in Firefox Kills Users on Load!"

I think the only decent, long-term solution is to name apps at the outset in a way that allows them to be prominently associated with a distributer that might have changecd it. Firefox is actually named very well for this purpose, it just hasn't been used that way to date. The official name is Mozilla Firefox, and the distro name could be Debian Firefox, RedHat Firefox, etc.

If such a naming convention were used across the free software world, then security flaws wouldn't be misreported nearly as easily.

That is actually a really great idea! I hope you'll pitch it to the right people in both Debian and MoFo.

I'd also be curious to find out how other software deals with the issue of quality/brand control. Anyone knows?

Re:Namechange even for bug fixes

[dastrike]

Debian does this already with Thunderbird.

Welcome to Debian Thunderbird!

Debian Thunderbird is the debian package derived from Thunderbird, a next generation open-source email, news and rss client made by Mozilla Foundation.

Firefox european trademark

[beric]

The "Firefox" trademark has been filed at OHIM.

The application was published on 14/03/2005. According to the regulation, there is a period of 3 months during which anyone can file an opposition before the registration.

The delay expired 3 days ago.

The mark can be considered as "Registered" (provided the registration fee is paid).

Re:Microsoft supports open source? IE is not force

[reflective recursion]

Win98 is a long fucking way from the birth of IE. By that time (IE 4.0) Netscape largely did not matter, and my entire fucking point remains. You could *still* download that pile of crap NS 4.x and use it if you wanted. You were not forced to use IE.

Look at how many web pages out there require Internet Explorer because of proprietary ActiveX extentions. So, it's okay if IE requires proprietary code, but Netscape was so incredibly vile when they did the same thing? Also, where did you get the source code to IE? I don't recall Microsoft being open-source friendly either, yet apparently you are giving them a free pass even though there is no IE source code out there that I'm aware of. By the way, IE still is not 100% supportive of open standards either.

Nice logical fallacy there. Just because I say something about one company or browser does *not* mean I imply the opposite for the other.

Who's being revisionist again?

Look in the mirror. I'm guessing you started using this fashionable Internet thing in '98 or later because you obviously don't realize IE was being shipped with Windows since 1995. No one was complaining then. Maybe because Netscape was so far ahead then that they just didn't need to complain. Once IE caught up to Navigator in terms of features, financial reality hit Netscape hard. They had no plan whatsoever to profit from their enterprise. They would have died if MS was not even there to begin with. It was simply a matter of time. So what do they do? MS was a nice scapegoat for their incompetence. Jim Clark may know how to find good tech and start a business, but he doesn't know a thing about turning a profit or sustaining business. He was cornered out of his prior business, SGI, which I'm sure there was a good reason for it too. Probably the other board members could see the writing on the wall and had to cut him loose, as they seem to be doing okay or at least surviving today.

Slashdot is helping out the lawsuits

[GoatMonkey2112]

I'm glad that Slashdot pointed this out so that someone else can go register these names first.

I first posted this chestnut...

[ConceptJunkie]

... about a year ago.

So first it was: Phoenix.

Then it became: Firebird.

Now, it's: Firefox.

So let's see. In a few weeks it will become: Starfox.

Then:

StarCastle, StarChild, StarTrek, StarWars, CoreWars, CoreDump, RageDump, SpeedBump, SpeedFreak, PhonePhreak, PhoneCall, BootyCall, RollCall, RolePlay, DoublePlay, StrikeOut, StrikeForce, DeltaForce, DeltaVee, SpeedingTicket, RecklessDriving, DrunkAndDisorderly, AssaultAndBattery, AlkalineBattery, DoubleABattery, DCell, FuelCell, JailCell, JailBreak, JailBird, StoolPigeon,
SafeCracker, BankRobber, BankVault, PoleVault, PolePosition, FishingPole, FlagPole, FlagStaff

and, ultimately, Phoenix.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Parent NOT insightful

[Danuvius]

Debian is a linux distribution that consists of tweaked and patched software fitted together into a coherent system. Their standard practice is to make slight changes (bug fixes, security fixes, et al) to software to make it fit their system and their quality expectations.

Mozilla Firefox's trademark clause does not allow *any* changes (no bug fixes, no security patches, can't fix a single misspelled menu item and still call the result Firefox afterwards).

Accordingly, Debian can then either:
a) not include Firefox
b) call it something else (that users will not be familiar with)
c) submit code to Mozilla Foundation even for utterly trivial things, even for wholly Debian specific things of no interest to anyone else... and *WAIT* until someone at MoFo incorporates their change (or doesn't)
d) accept that on a whim Debian is *for now* granted ad-hoc exception to the rules (which may later be revoked... did BitKeeper teach people anything about revokable rights?)
e) find some way of getting MoFo to change policies

Instead of making dumb comparisons that only a Slashdot moderator could dub insightful; they decided to have a serious discussion on the issue.

e) b) and d) are the favoured solutions thus far in that order or in this order: e) d) and b) depending on who you ask.

Mind you Debian actually has somewhat flexible and clearly document rules regarding their logo (which is "trademark stuff"--is it not?) as opposed to MoFo's "you can use it if we feel like excepting you from our trademark clause" approach: http://www.debian.org/logos/

Debian is irrelevant anyway...

[Anonymous Coward]

How about having a release more than every 3 years... sheesh

Re:Naming thread

[Hugonz]

And then it will be "that Prince-themed browser"

Precisely!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is PRECISELY why OSS is such a threat to business... if they can't even take the time to do the legal checks on the NAME, how can they be trusted to have taken the time to ensure they aren't violating other trademarks/copyrights when it comes to the code.

Businesses are opening themselves up to either lawsuits OR to huge financial consequences should they commit to a technology that must then be pulled/rewritten because nobody checked they were legal.

Firefox's Name Issues...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't they just call it Mozilla Mythical Flying Bird of Flame and just get it over with? I'm pretty sure you'll have no trouble snagging a TM on that...

Was IE accepted, or just included and tolerated?

[UnapprovedThought]

While IE certainly proliferated quickly, in most cases that wasn't because of an explicit decision by each consumer to download it as some new thing that hadn't been there before and then take the trouble to install it and learn how to use it.

Most people got IE already installed with their operating system, and they got that with the computer they purchased. Their ISP software may have included it in a bundle in some cases. Just having IE should not be interpreted as a statement of preference.

The name "explorer" is found in a lot of other products, but we see no trademark issues for some reason... Maybe FF should be called "Internet Firefox," that is, unless someone owns a trademark for "Internet," or for the space between words. :)

Re:Firefox tm policy and Debian tm policy v. simil

[Anonymous Coward]

Debians offical logo isn't included in debian (main) but can be used to market cd/dvd, t-shirts etc under special conditions, so that problem doesn't arise. Debian has set constantly higher standars for it self so old version contain things that have later been deemed non-free, but that's an entirely different argument.

FireFox-FireWolf-FireLion-FireApe-FireMan-...

[hadaso]

FireBird->FireFox->FireWolf->FireLion->FireApe->Fi reMan->FireWoman->???