Firefox To Be Renamed In Debian

Viraptor writes, "Debian is ready to change the name of Firefox in its distributions, beginning with Etch. They say it can be done within a week. The reasons stem from Mozilla's recent insistence on trademark fidelity and its preferences regarding Firefox patches. Debian doesn't want to accept the original trademarked fox & globe logo; they don't see it as really 'free' to use. On the other hand, Mozilla doesn't want Firefox distributed under that name if it lacks the logo. Mozilla also wants Debian patches to be submitted to them before distribution, and claims that's what others (Red Hat and Novell) are already doing. But some believe development and releases will slow down if distribution-specific patches have to be checked and accepted first. We will surely see more clashes between copyright claims and 'really free' distros such as Debian. Ubuntu is also asking similar questions." No word yet what the new name will be or what the logo will look like.

Comments

Questions on Thunderbird & Other Mozilla Produ

[Noksagt]

Why is this only happening with Firefox? Why not Thunderbird or the other Mozilla products which are in Debian's package repository? Why not the "Mozilla" name, itself?

To Debian: Pick Your Battles

[BeeBeard]

Thank you for helping to clear that up. I followed a link in another post where the essence of the argument over the issue was supposedly located, and it ended up being page after unreadable page of typical Debian infighting.

Debian's problem has always been that its handlers place users and the usability of their distribution far below very petty internal arguments intended to frame the distro as some sort of legal pioneer (Debian Linux vs. Debian GNU/Linux "controversy" anyone?). It's a huge turnoff to the non-zealots among us, and certainly makes for bad PR.

Please mod down misleading parent post

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow... This has to be one of the most misleading and uninformative comments I've read on Slashdot in a long while. (And that's saying something!)

If you had actually taken the time to read the page you linked, you'd notice that Debian has TWO logos to explicitly prevent situations like the one that Mozilla is creating.

From the page that YOU linked:

Debian has decided to create two logos: one logo is for official Debian use; the other logo falls under an open use type license.

So what, exactly, is your problem with Debian's logo situation?

FreeFox

[mcvos]

Or they could use a different logo/name combo that is quite similar to the original

I prefer FreeFox. Still very recognisable, while at the same time rubbing it in that Firefox is not truly free.

What Happened to "Community Edition?"

[Noksagt]

Mozilla still has a draft policy allowing people to name modified versions of "Mozilla Firefox" as "Firefox Community Edition." What happened to this? Many distributors have been following this. Why can't Debian use the name "Firefox Community Edition, Debian" as the new name fro their browser? Or will Mozilla be going after all of the other distributors they had previously granter permission to as well?

Note also that the "community editions" also forbade use of the official logo!

Selective quoting

[KFW]

But that isn't all that is on the page. How about at the top:
 

Although Debian can be obtained for free and will always remain that way, events such as the problem with the ownership of the term "Linux" have shown that Debian needs to protect its property from any use which could hurt its reputation.

  Or (regarding the Debian Official Use Logo):
 

This logo may only be used if ... official approval is given by Debian for its use in this purpose.

It would seem that Debian recognizes that the use of trademarks is important to protecting the reputation of a project, and may even require approval in some cases. So why should they expect FireFox to be any different?
/K

Re:How did I know /. readers would confuse the iss

[aziegler]

Debian takes that right very seriously, and it has the right; Mozilla doesn't have a problem with that. However, their unmodified images are part of the branding, and the use of the name with the logo is mandatory as part of the branding. Mozilla's lawyers indicated to them (by my reading of the original thread) that while they *could* trademark the Firefox logo and make it under a modifications-allowed license, they would greatly risk their ability to police and enforce the Firefox logo as a trademark. Similarly, Debian's patches are of questionable quality and necessity and allowing the use of the "Firefox" name with these questionably patched versions would potentially damage the quality of the Firefox mark.

Debian just can't expect to get a free ride for doing a half-job. Or even, as the case appears to be, a quarter-job.

As has been pointed out: Debian takes its image and mark very seriously, too. Why the bitching by Debian supporters when they have to make changes for the very sort of thing that they do themselves?