Slashdot Mirror
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."
So I wonder what new name they'll pick now...
Good thing I installed that plugin, almost makes the browser change name less often.
Sigs are bad for your health
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?
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
FireBird oops that won't work. Ok Foxbird and ThunderFire anyone?
Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
Given the issues over the naming, I am surprised that they aren't more thoughrough with their checks.
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?
*blinking cursor*
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.
/. ? They're worse than useless.
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
i hope this doesn't have a ripple effect.
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
... a Leonardo Da Quirm replacement name:- web-browser.
Super-fast-and-cross-platform-and-expandable-free
I think that just rolls off the tongue, don't you?
multifariam.net -- yet another nerd blog
Call it Flamebait.
t
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.
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.
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?
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!
I remember when legal used to mean lawful, now it means some kind of loophole. - Leo Kessler
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.
Go to Help -> About Firefox...
"Some trademark rights used under licence from The Charlton Company."
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%...
Cotton needed frequent replacement, and nylon was cheaper than cotton (and didn't wear out). Next time you needed new line, you bought nylon.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.)
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
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.
Look out for the release of Fireferret 1.1 this summer!
The probably should distribute Firefox with Firesomething extension enabled...
"It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
TBFKAF (The Browser Formerly Known As Firefox)
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.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Firefox > ?
Browser.
Why not? It's no worse than calling a word processor "Word".
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
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.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
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.
I used to have a better sig but it broke.
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.
waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
> 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.
Firefox > Firdiva or if you wanna go the Lispire way, Firefox > Assfire.
My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
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.
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...
http://blog.nexusuk.org
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.
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".
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
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 ..
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!
. . . or is their absurdly broad domain name section begging for a mozillatrademarkpolicysucks.org website?
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.
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.
Read at Gerv's blog. So much for the quality of ZDNet journalism. :)
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)
Is owned by Triumph Motorcycles both here and in the states. It's licenced to Ford (?) for use on automobiles.
They seem to spend more of their time complaining than anything else.
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?"
-- *My* journal is more interesting than *yours*...
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
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
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
"I'm going to f***ing bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to f***ing kill Google"
"The dew has clearly fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning"
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).
I'm glad that Slashdot pointed this out so that someone else can go register these names first.
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/
Akarsz Magyar Gentoo fórumot? Akkor
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.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!