Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla vs Debian Analyzed
lisah writes "Linux.com has a behind the scenes look at the history of the ongoing debates between Debian and Mozilla that predate Debian's last release, Sarge. The article also reports the issue may have been laid to rest for good now that Debian tentatively plans on calling it "Iceweasel" but attorney Larry Rosen said this never should have been a debate in the first place. In addition, Mozilla has been prompted to clarify its position on the company's marketing blog."
Wow, what can you add to "Iceweasel?"
Someone around here has a sig that says something like, "letting a programmer name your product is like making a marketer program it." Never before has it been demonstrated so clearly. (Well, to be fair, at least the browser isn't Gimped.)
Comment of the year
Summary, hopefully before anyone gets a chance to 'blame' Mozilla or 'blame' Debian over nothing:
Debian don't want to include certain icons related to Firefox because the licensing of those graphics isn't consistent with the aims of their project.
Mozilla say that's fine, as long as Debian don't call the package "Firefox".
So Debian aren't going to call it Firefox.
No villains, and everyone lives hapily ever after. The end.
...to see both of these groups in a dispute like this. Really, I don't understand what the Debian Dev's problem was in the first place. If someone tried to call Ubuntu, Mepis, or Knoppix "Debian", they would have issues too...
Unfortunately it seems this guy was right on the money!
Dearest Debian Leaders: Why insult those who provide you (and everyone else) with important software? So there is a minor issue with the trademark name and Debian Free Guidelines. Is this something worth getting nasty over? I use Debian server side at work. I like stable - it is justly named. Please, focus on a new stable release and drop the interproject bickering.
As an Ubuntu user, I run Flash player, Nvidia drivers and several other proprietary additions. So why is this an issue? I understand if they don't to ship copyrighted logos but big DEAL. Does this comprimise the distribtion in any way? Could this open them up to potential lawsuits? I think they should just relax and let it slide. They're being a bit anal about all this as far as I'm concerned. Luckily, Ubuntu will still ship with Firefox so not an issue (even though it is a Debian distro).
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
Well duh! Mozilla is a much better browser.
Debian wants to preserve my rights to modify the artwork included with the distribution. I greatly appreciate this right! I sincerely hope they continute to defend my right to replace the crappy artwork they provide with the official Mozilla Firefox artwork, since I begrudgingly do this every single time Firefox is updated on my systems.
This would be like changing the name of the distribution to Dumbo GMAC/Looney and wondering why Disney and GM are sending you C&D letters, while Linus sends you an angry e-mail asking that you respect his trademark. It's free software, we can call it anything we want, and you are free to modify it! While technically true, that doesn't get anyone anywhere.
To Debian: We don't live in a black and white world. Please find another academic circular argument, and let this one go.
Karma: Incomprehensible (Mostly affected by posting at +5, reading at -1, and metamoderating everything unfair.)
Firefox remains the same, Debian's the one that doesn't come with Firefox. Why they didn't just move it to non-free is beyond me.
Oh well, Ubuntu already has things worked out with Firefox, so no naming games going on there. Debian should note well that sometimes downstreams do take over when the parent project became too onerous to work with. No one is too big for this to happen.
Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
cbeard's post suggests that Ubuntu has made a similar agreement with Mozilla as the agreements that Red Hat and Novell have (which is why you'll see a full branded Firefox in SuSE and Fedora). But Ubuntu folks are working on an IceWeasel icon.
Anyone know what's up with Ubuntu? Are they going to pull official Firefox releases, or are they going to pull IceWeasel straight from Debian?
Frankly, I've had enough of this nonsense. I want to use software from developers who care about developing, rather than getting into petty arguments over the naming of certain pieces of software. That's why I've decided to boycott both Debian and Mozilla.
What I've done is switch my desktop systems over to FreeBSD. FreeBSD offers many of the same features as Debian, but without the bullshit. Personally, I find its packaging and ports systems far more flexible than Debian's APT. And from my brief viewings of its kernel and userland source code, it appears far better-written than Linux.
Likewise, I have also ditched Mozilla. I now use Konqueror as my web browser. Aside from missing a few handy extensions, it triumphs over Firefox in every other way. It's faster, and it uses much less memory. It has better CSS support. It has better Java integration.
Debian and Mozilla really need to cut out this nonsense. The more they bicker, the more they fall behind projects like Konqueror and FreeBSD.
It should be called "Firevixen".
It seems there's a bit much of the "fine" syndrome. Can't we play nice? Guess not, because one side said Fine, and the other FINE, and we end up with IceWeasel? WTF?
There's so much respect in the air..
How about people realizing the problem and finding a solution that will keep the name from changing yet again. Or just leave it out in non-free and have a meta package take care of it..
Debian could also switch to Kmeleon as it's less memory hungry.
-- Robi
Debian really had zero options here folks. Moz Corp's new policy is simple. "Nobody releases a browser called Firefox except us or those who allow us absolute control over their releases. Period, zero exceptions." So far RedHat, SUSE and Ubuntu have agreed to cede control over ALL modifications, including prior approval of security patches to Moz Corp. Obviously Debian couldn't, wouldn't and shouldn't have done anything of the sort. Thus IceWeasel comes to Debian.
I already made the change earlier in the year. Done right FF plugins still work so no big deal.
Democrat delenda est
Mozilla people have stated that the Community Edition Policy (listed as draft) is still valid. In the Debian bug on this issue, some Debian devs are considering it. A lot of the Mozilla marketing people seem to be unaware of it & didn't list it as an option.
This policy seems to be a good fit--Debian MUST NOT include the image which is under a non-DFSG copyright to conform to this policy (they don't want to and currently don't include it, but the NEW "standard trademark policy" is that it must be used if the Firefox name is used). And they must rename it "Firefox Community Edition, Debian." This seems preferable to Ice Weasel for both the majority of Debian users and Mozilla's image. OpenBSD already follows this policy, as do others. If the CEP is ever dropped, there will be many more distros who will be forced to switch to "Ice Weasel."
Its free advertising for both of them.
I for one didn't know a new debian was due out, did you?
I know theres a new firefox due but not everyone does.
Or am I being too cynical?
liqbase
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
They aren't bickering. Debian has policies in place and if they start making exceptions they have to make them for everyone. Thankfully they didn't make exceptions.
This was the correct thing to do under the circumstances. It doesn't really change anything except artwork and the name.
Just like they don't include Netscape because it's a branded version of the Mozilla based engines, firefox too is a branded version with non-free branding.
If enough people don't like this, they can create their own debian based distribution and come up with their own rules.
Sorry, looks like I picked the wrong tab to paste in there. This IceWeaselIcon wiki page has several drafts.
Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night, the ice weasels come.
- Matt Groening
Simpsons, Futurama, Life in Hell
What you fail to understand is the liabilities involved in letting another organization use a proprietary logo.
If the unauthorized use of logos were not prosecuted by a company I could do lots of fun things. For example, I could repackage the gimp, throw photoshop's splash image in it and call it photoshopper. Maybe the name of my company would be AdobeHut too. Better still, I'll put a "circle R" next to all of it and make it look official.
If Adobe doesn't throw every last lawyer at me, then lots of other people could do it. The courts would see it as essentially public domain. Meanwhile, I can drag Adobe into court for using my logo. Crazy right?
Both parties are doing the right thing here. I doubt it really consumed very much time/energy on the part of the project as these kinds of details must be addressed and that's about it.
Stories like this tend to make a figurative fire where there is none.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
seriously, fire + fox ("elemental thingy" + animal) is similar to ice + weasel (ok, ice is not one of the four elements or elementals, but...)...
nobody got nasty. DFSG does not permit the release of the logo with firefox, mozilla does not permit the browser to be called firefox w/o the logo.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
Looks like Debian is getting burned by its own arrogance.
The GPL-3 allows the copywrite holder to place certain restrictions on the licensee's use of the software, for instance no military/weapons use (don't like your stuff being used; Freedom's a biach isn't it). Restrictions on what parts of the code the use may or may not change; requiring links to download the source be maintained.
Now they being hit, once again, by restrictions the copywrite holders are placing on the distribution: if you distribute software that we own the copywrite to, you must maintain our branding. Sounds reasonable, the application is called Firefox and the logos and branding are part of the application; after all the copywrite holder does have the right to say what's part of application, (certain exceptions may apply in the case of illegal monopolies, and fraudlent activities). The usage restrictions also don't seem out of line with Debain's official logo usage.
http://www.debian.org/logos/Looks like the Mozilla Foundation is pretty much in line with the Debian usage here.
So the Debian developers are free to change the code however they want, but they can't call it Firefox and they can't use the Firefox logos.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
I just minimized my browser and noticed the following heading on my taskbar:
Mozilla vs Debian Anal
Sounds like it sums everything up right there.
welcome our new Iceweasel overlords!
What's the big deal with the name? Anyone that needs to recognize it mostly just clicks on the internet icon (thingy). Anyone else can just look and will find it. Besides, I never liked the sound of the Firefox name anyways. Iceweasel sounds so much cooler (literally, as a matter of fact).
He says that Mozilla's stance on protecting its branding elements is no different than that of any other company that wants to ensure a high-quality user experience.
Yeah, so? That's the problem. You're not supposed to be like any other company. You're supposed to care about freedom.
How we know is more important than what we know.
This isn't the first situation regarding naming and Mozilla Foundation. (Although, completely different.)
Firefox was once called Firebird but renamed due to the "other" firebird which was a db.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
I applaud Debian for sticking to what they believe. I, for one, will be taking the free Debian artwork and name and replacing the standard Firefox logo and name on my distro(s) of choice. I think Debian should have a contest for a new Iceweasel logo every bit as snazzy as the Firefox logo.
If Debian is as "totally free" as they claim, then presumably I could make my own distro and call it "Debian" too. (Or, hell, I could make a TOTALLY UNRELATED piece of software and call it "Debian"... the name is free, right?)
Yep. Mozilla has been on both sides -- they had to rename Phoenix to Firebird, then Firebird to Firefox.
And Debian's been on both sides, too, when they forced the DCC to drop "Debian" (originally it was the "Debian Common Core Alliance.")
lol lockwood the wallpaper is falling off of the walls and all the plants died
This issue is larger than Debian. This is really about the GPL. If you downloaded the source code for Firefox, you'll find around 18 text files labeled 'license' in the source code and not one reference to the GPL. There are only references to the MPL. While the Mozilla website claims that it is "tri-licensed" under the GPL, I have found no evidence in the current source code that backs up that claim.
In fact, Mozilla has modified the text of the MPL, which now has a new preamble which states "You are not granted rights or licenses to the trademarks of the Mozilla Foundation or any party, including without limitation the Firefox name or logo." This is a new modification to the MPL and is not reflected in the version of the license available on the Mozilla website. Furthermore, this version of the license has not been analysed by the GNU project, and might not be compatable with the GPL.
It is a RED HERRING to argue that trademark and copyright law offer a distinction in this case. If you release source code that contains image files which are licensed under the GPL, they are licensed under the GPL. If you release it under them under a tri-license, then they are tri-licensed. If you pick and choose which parts of your source code are GPL or MPL, then, well, you have a problem with compliance.
This is a serious LEGAL issue, not a moral issue. IMHO, all distros which are distributed under the GPL should stop using the MPL until they consult legal counsel!
Definitely. This is something we're currently discussing in my Intellectual Property course at my university. We're covering various cases, including the "Amen Break", the use of the word "Google" in terms of searching the internet (and not particularly using Google search engine), DVD Jon's DeCSS, and other issues that constitue "fair use" and infringment of copyrights, trademarks, patents and trade secrets.
I never thought a legal class would be so interesting, but it really is. It's greatly helped in understanding these cases, and I'd recommend anybody who hasn't taken such a class, to enroll in one in the coming semesters.
Amen. Every programmer should take at least a course in IP law. Maybe then I'd be able to spend less time explaining things to people whose education about IP law is a combinations of "what they want it to be" and talking points from RMS.
Makes one wonder if this whole "Intellectual Property (tm)" thing is worth the bother.
Software patents delenda est.
Firefox is becoming more of a software dev platform. Recently, in an app I did, we had a prob with Firefox's GC for xml objects causing it to crash. An upgrade fixed it(at first a beta ver of FF/XulRunner) and now it's in the stable branches.
Now, pretend for a minute Debian had Firefox with that name and the regular icons. But they decided, for whatever reason, to roll back or use their own GC patch for the problem we had.
So, my app wouldn't work on Firefox, but would work on Firefox? Specifically, not on Debian FF but in the rest of the world? Any idea how inane this is? Firefox is trying to protect a brand of quality, if debian introduces a new bug into their browser, should Moz provide support? Should other people provide support in IRC, newsgroups, etc.. ?
What if I modified python to not use if anymore but use wellmaybeiwillonlyif instead, but released it, called it Python, same version, etc... should I be allowed to do so? Could I then say that python from python.org is not compatible with Python from python.org, which I should then call the unofficial branch?
Yeah, it's silly, but if I'm an OS, that's a lot of implementations of it that no longer support "if".
Oh good grief Mozilla guys!
Look - FireFox is OpenSourced - right? So for chrissakes let them
do what they want with it - that is THE ENTIRE POINT!!! If the
Debian guys (who are not exactly complete Klutzes at this stuff)
mess up, you say "Hey the Debian guys screwed up - come download
the real one from the usual places."
Geez - just make it happen and get over it.
www.sjbaker.org
Please, tell me there will be a new use extention in gentoo for this! I must have the icon!
Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
2) a user on a Debian system not knowing this goes to Mozilla IRC with a Firefox problem (this has already happened)
3) No one can solve the Bug... only to find it is an unofficial patch made or nto made by Debian
4) User complains that Firefox sucks because its not the same across systems
5) Brand is tarnished
6) Rinse. Repeat.
If you don't want to follow the guidelines, and follow your own way of doing things... change the name, or risk damaging the whole projects reputation. If I know Firefox works a certain way, I go to a new system and something doesn't work quite right, well guess what I'm not going to be happy. It's starts with the logo... but where does it end?
"but the fact that they're being a PITA for Linux distributions,"..this is correct! Want to know why? It is because quite clearly mozilla firefox is a WINDOWS product. Yes, they release for other OSes, but primarily it is a windows dominated organization, intended for windows users, for a windows market. They are mozilla corporation, in this for the long haul to make money at this, and being a windows product is the path they have chosen, linux and mac are secondary issues they are sort of reluctantly stuck with because they needed the exposure to overcome their defects and lack of use early on. To be frank, it has been a colossal fake-out.
Open source needs a true, different alternative, an open source GPL licensed browser intended solely for open source operating systems. Firefox is not leading people to open source operating systems in any statistically significant numbers, it is helping to keep people cemented to windows and helping to insure that microsoft maintains desktop and commercial dominance.
That's extremely childish.
Indeed. This is, i thought, why the MPL contains a clause (like the GPL) which requires prominent notice of modification as a condition to distribution of modifications.
Linus doesn't need to enforce the Linux trademark to prevent distribution of modified versions. The relative unity of Linux stems from quality and leadership, not from legal wrangling.
I'm pretty sure that "Linux" is a trademarked. See the Linux Trademark Institute. IANAL, so I wasn't exactly sure what was going on there, but it looks like you have to get a license to use "the mark" (man, that's creepy). It would appear that there are also some legal considerations when using images of Tux, the Linux penguin. Once again, I didn't really have the knowledge required to understand the details.
Just FYI...
This space reserved for administrative use.
First you claim this:
This just gets funnier every time I read it. I guess my first reaction was "Who the fuck are you?" That you would claim that IP doesn't exist is laughable. If you read the article you'll notice that it includes quotes from Larry Rosen, a well-known IP lawyer. Please email Mr. Rosen to tell him that his profession doesn't exist.
You go on:
I would like to introduce you to Jim. Jim here is Associate Manager of the Department of No Fucking Shit, Sherlock. Interestingly, do you know who originally confused the two? Fucking Debian is who--some asshole coder who thought he knew more about the law than lawyers decided it would be reasonable to confuse the two, and Debian's petty "stance" was borne.
This is a truthful but completely meaningless statement. Jim would like to talk to you about it.
More meaningless filler that anybody who's been reading Slashdot for the last few weeks could have written. Jim is not pleased.
Then you wrote this glistening turd:
You made this all bold and everything, presumably because you thought it was important to do so. But I'm just stunned--your ignorance and failure is so astounding. Here's a shocker for you: the fucking "public" have no say or interest in this whatsoever, certainly not enough to even have "confusion" about copyrights vs. trademarks. It's a firm distinction that exists in the law (you know, in the field you think doesn't exist), and I daresay the distinction exists in the minds of this public you pretend to care so much about.
Perform this simple fucking test: Ask somebody of average intelligence over 40 years old which they think is copyrighted and which they think is trademarked, the Nike Swoosh or the contents of the newest Grisham novel?
So here's you, you pretended to have your thumb to the pulse of the "people" (whoever these fucking non-Debian dimwits might be) and claimed that there's some kind of fucking conspiracy afoot by Corporate America--and by Corporate America I think you mean companies who would dare diminish themselves and insult their customers by actually charging for their products. Oh exclamation point!
Again, where did this confusion occur, the one you think Corporate America created to confuse people who don't exist about what goes down in a field of law you think doesn't exist? It started in the mind of a non-lawyer coder who decided to start some shit with Mozilla because he didn't like the fact that Mozilla wanted to approve sloppy Debian patches before they went out.
Leave it to a Slashdot poster to pretend to know more about the law than fucking lawyers.
I for one welcome our Icy Weasel overlords.
And the iceweasel logo is soo much cooler than the firefox logo.
Hmm... I'm reasonably well educated about copyrights, patents and trademarks, and I've never found anything RMS has said about them to be at variance with what I knew. In particular his writings on copyright are excellent and factual, and his opinions are clearly stated and well supported.
He doesn't in enough detail about the finer points of patent law though, and he should, because many of those finer points strongly indicate that patents no longer serve the purpose for which they were originally intended.
Of all the various bodies of law bundled under the term 'intellectual property' (a truly horrible term IMHO) trademark law is the kind I find least objectionable and is the least abused. Most of the abuses of trademark law I've seen have been to try to silence public debate by taking over domain names and such.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
I'm posting anonymously because I don't feel like being polite to you.
ahahahahahahahahahaaaaaa
It's OK, I've done the same thing before myself. I guess after taking the time typing that 3 part novel you forgot to click that anonymous ticker? Put your flame suit on buddy!
Debian, Ubuntu, Redhat etc should get a few people round a table and establish a decent (ie not iceweasel) name they can all use and promote.
If the main problem with not using "Firefox" is that the new name won't be recognisable then the solution is to make the new name recogniseable.
Interestingly this could devalue the "Firefox" name more than freer licencing of the trademark. If a competing name is established and used by most distributors (and maybe packaged for Windows too) then it may be the start of the new name overtaking "Firefox" in peoples minds.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
I am releasing Debian 6.0 as soon as the find and replace finishes......
Then all of the "The dog is on fire" jokes on Slashdot would be true.
Wow. I just got that... Fire Fox... Ice Weasel. Yeah, it took me a while :/
I don't like to sit. Sitting is for people who like to sit.
I'm sorry that I have to take a Stallman approach to this issue, but it's stupid to have Copyleft and Trademark compete against each other...
As punishment, you have been sentenced to having to wear eyeglasses, shorts and a false beard while you give speeches about free software for six (6) months.
Can you imagine the mess it would be if every FOSS project that have a trademark insisted on every Linux distributions getting their patches and build options approved before they where allowed to distribute the software ?
This is a slippery slope, and I have no sympathy for Mozilla in this debate. I care absolutely zero about Mozilla branding and trademark protection, but I care a lot about the convenience of running an OS that is complete, functional and well-integrated out-of-the-box.
This would make GPL3 non-free by the FSF's own definition, which requires the freedom to run the program for any purpose. Please support your claim with text from the current GPL3 discussion draft.
Now this is one reason why I love open source software so much. They have fun with their naming. It makes using an OS so much more interesting. Much better than using those staid commercial systems. IceWeasel has to rate up there with replacing "more" with "less", or naming a vi clone as "Elvis".
The purpose of free software is to permit anyone to modify it and redistribute their modified versions. The Mozilla Corporation is essentially trying to use their trademark to strongarm people into treating Firefox as proprietary software, in which you may not distribute modified versions without permission of the owner. Debian wisely refused to agree to such a restriction, and insists on distributing it as free software that they are free to change as they see fit.
Now whether any particular changes are good or not is something we can have a technical argument over, but the fundamental issues---that downstream distributors should have the right to modify free software and redistribute their modified versions---is so central to free software that the concept makes no sense without it.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Too many syllables, "IceVole" perhaps?
There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
... since the early days of linux, I can honestly say, debian has done somethings that make me cringe and as soon as I read the post here I went "oh here we go again." Then I read the story... cripes, gg mozilla for being a bunch of fucktards. This is why involving lawyers when not necessary is a *bad* thing. Someone's getting paid somewhere for this one and money says its an attorney. The vast majority of developers on both sides are wanting to beat their heads off the desk about now.
Shadus
While I don't have much sympathy with the Political Correctness Debian attitude over this I have even less for what I see coming from Mozilla Corp.
Apart from issuing phrases that sound as though they are coming from a certain (too) well-known software company in the North-West US ("preserving the user experience") they are getting on their high horse at a time when their product seems to be trying hard to corner the title of "World's buggiest web browser". I think they should be expending their effort on identifying whoever was responsible for the buggy code, getting them off the project and then re-writing the affected parts instead of worrying about this sort of issue.
From Merriam-Webster:-
/-"trer-&-lE, -'trer-/ adverb /-"trer-E-n&s, -'trer-/ noun
Main Entry: contrary
Pronunciation: 'kän-"trer-E, -"tre-rE, 4 often k&n-'trer-E
Function: adjective
1 : being so different as to be at opposite extremes : OPPOSITE (come to the contrary conclusion) (went off in contrary directions); also : being opposite to or in conflict with each other (contrary viewpoints)
2 : being not in conformity with what is usual or expected (actions contrary to company policy) (contrary evidence)
3 : UNFAVORABLE -- used of wind or weather
4 : temperamentally unwilling to accept control or advice
- contrarily
- contrariness
Without simply being derogatory, I've realised that when I think of Debian, the above word is what has customarily come to mind. It's nothing I can concretely put my finger on, but I've always felt that there was an aura of perversity about the project...a sense that the Debian developers change things from the upstream norm purely because they can, and not because they've necessarily put thought into whether or not it'd actually be a good idea. Not only that, I can also remember going into the Debian IRC channel on Freenode once. It reminded me very strongly of the account of the Mad Hatter's tea party from Alice in Wonderland. They honestly came across as some of the weirdest and most unhinged individuals I've encountered. I've been using IRC for 12 years, and have known some very bizarre types online...so that is saying a lot.
I'm not claiming that that is definitely what is happening here...I don't know, and the referenced article is sufficiently vague that I feel as though I still haven't got a better idea after having read it. What I am definitely saying however is that from what I've seen, these kinds of issues coming up is entirely consistent with Debian culturally. It's also one of the reasons why I've stayed far away from the distribution; that, their degree of formality with "policy", (are they a FOSS project, or a sovereign government?!) and their degree of open sympathy with Stallman/the FSF. I think I also resent the fact that I've read about them being referred to as the only "successful" non-commercial distribution, when due in part to the reasons listed above, there are others that I feel are at least as worthy of that designation as Debian is, if not moreso. Debian might be bigger, sure...but size alone does not necessarily equal success in my own mind.
That's not to say that there haven't been good things to come from the project, at least in a secondary sense. (Knoppix and Ubuntu come to mind, which are both Debian spinoffs) The point is that it's a long way from perfect...and things like this debacle are evidence to support that assertion.
To which you said, "Uh, done? I don't keep old casebooks on my shelf for the hell of it, you know."
On Slashdot, you are my favorite kind of lawyer. In real life, my least favorite. You are smug, lording it over other people, and 100% wrong.
If you think that the trademark law is enabled by the copyright and patent clause of the US Constitution, you might want to read the 1879 Trademark Cases. They are Supreme Court cases, so they should be in the old casebooks on your shelf. To wit, the federal trademark laws stem from the commerce clause, not the patent and copyright clause, precisely because the patent and copyright clause says nothing about trademark. This is the opposite of what you said.
Thus, your argument that the word "IP" has some kind of constitutional meaning is void.
I sure hope you don't fancy yourself an "IP lawyer."
With great power comes great fan noise.
Hey buddy, I wouldn't expect you to take the time, but if you read the parent to the post you linked to, you'll notice that the parent identified himself as a Jew, and I also did in my reply as an honest effort to establish common ground. Mentioning I was an attorney in the same breath was self-deprecating because of the old cliche (as in "oh a Jewish attorney, gosh how original). Plus, I'm not an IP lawyer--just a random asshole attorney who has done some IP work. And I stress some. IP law is like the end-all, be-all boutique thing to be doing. Frankly I'd like to do more. But there are certainly more knowledgeable, experienced people out there than I am.
/. postings go. Someone will say something meaningful, and then a veritable herd of posters will call him/her out with this "oh actually that one insignificant thing is not the case..." nonsense. So don't act like I'm some kind of oddity simply because I can couple good arguments with an insane, irrational impatience for dissent. At least the stick doesn't bother me much as long as I use enough KY. Later.
Oh and to slam me based on my posting history? What is that? I come up with my fair share of good comments that contribute to the overriding discussion or at least brighten someone's day, so where's the harm in that?
If I'm right in general but in my replies fucking pounce on the most trivial of misstatements like it's the end of the world if they're not pointed out, then I apologize. It's how I spend my days and I'm not the best at separating work from play. Plus, in case you haven't noticed, that seems to be par for the course as far as
I'm pretty sure GNU did it, seeing as it is downloadable from gnu.org and it goes with GNUzilla.
look! it's a bird, it's a plane, it's....a girl? yes, a girl browsing Slashdot on Linux
Actually the Linux kernel is forked all the time, and is generally changed far more than any distro changes Firefox. Most every single Linux distro out there doesn't ship the vanilla Linux kernel as released by Linus. Debian, Fedora, RHEL, Gentoo, SuSE, Mandrake, Ubuntu, Knoppix, Linspire, etc all ship modified (sometimes VERY modified, on an old version of RHEL when they were still using 2.4, they back ported LOADS of patches from 2.6) versions of the Linux kernel.
I also find it funny that you posted as a coward and linked to the one post I've made in like the last 2 months where I'm just really discussing something instead of making a point about it. It is fun to just talk to people about certain subjects, you know? To exchange information in that fashion? They say something I wasn't aware of and I respond in kind.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have lawyer alcohol to consume while I watch a lawyer baseball lawyer game.
why not quit screwing around with the names and artwork of mozilla packages and just put the "real" thing, including name & artwork, in a new "supported, non-free" repository...
there are enough dsfg-compliant alternatives (epiphany, evolution, K-whatever, etc) out there to include in the regular "main" repository.
problem solved!
1) Debian doesn't want to use the offical patch system (i.e wait on Linux's update approval process, etc.)
2) a user on a Debian system not knowing this goes to Linux IRC with a Linux problem (this has already happened)
3) No one can solve the Bug... only to find it is an unofficial patch made or nto made by Debian
4) User complains that Linux sucks because its not the same across systems
5) Brand is tarnished
6) Rinse. Repeat.
If you don't want to follow the guidelines, and follow your own way of doing things... change the name, or risk damaging the whole projects reputation. If I know Linux works a certain way, I go to a new system and something doesn't work quite right, well guess what I'm not going to be happy. It's starts with the logo... but where does it end?
It's fine when the Linux kernel is modified and distributed, as well as Gnome and KDE, but not Firefox once the Mozilla Corporation notices (it was fine with the Mozilla Foundation previously). Also Mozilla often doesn't support the version of Firefox that ships with Debian stable anymore (so Debian HAS TO either back port security updates, leave the users with an unsecure system, or break stable by making major updates).
this is completely assinine. don't these people have anything better to do?
Are they going to rename every package in the pools? Just add the bastard to non-free if you're that farking worried about it.
flippin debian, too much politics, not enough releasing.
"If you love someone, set them free. If they come home, set them on fire." - George Carlin
Can you point me to where he made this remark?
The only comment he made was here, where he said it was meant for porting to other Operating Systems (as opposed to distributions). But other Linux distros follow this policy & other Mozilla people have agreed that it could be appropriate.
I don't see a material difference between Mozilla and Debian with regard to the concept of "F/OSS." Firefox is fully open source, and there's no hypocrisy involved in their decision--it's not an open source vs. not-so-open source debate as you've framed it.
It's a trademark and marketing/liability issue. If you modify Firefox for your own use, that's fine. You can even redistribute your modified Firefox. What you can't do is market your modified product *AS* Mozilla Firefox, because while it's based on the same source, it is NOT the same end product as the one vended as the "official" Mozilla Firefox.
They could have tried to call the product Debian Firefox, which addresses the ownership/liability concerns put forth by Mozilla's lawyers, but then it becomes a trademark dispute. Firefox is a trademarked name for a web browser product (material goods, albeit digital) produced and supported by Mozilla. Therefore, using the name "Firefox" requires the approval of the owner of said trademark. In order to grant that approval, Mozilla wanted to see and approve all modifications--that way, they could point out problems and put out notice to modifications they do not support or endorse. Debian philosophically disagrees with that sort of vetting, and opted to rename the product.
The whole debate has nothing to do with how "open" either company is. Imagine you, an independent company, made substantial modifications to a shipping version of Debian and put it back on the Internet for distribution, but you still called your product "Debian." Would Debian say, "please continue using our trademarks on your unofficial, non-Debian product"? You bet your ass they wouldn't.
Yeah. Shoddy distributors messing up the pristine and just perfect linux kernel! How dare they mess up the WORD OF GOSPEL from Linus's git repository itself!
You say they are patching it to make it better? You're saying that Linus and LKML's opinion encourages this behaviour? Nevermind...
On the other hand, shoddy distributors messing up the pristine and just perfect Firefox browser! How dare they mess up the WORD OF GOSPEL from the Mozilla corp.'s cvs repository itself!
See the direction I'm going into?
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
The only possible way this could work is if you managed to sell it to a completely separate group of users. Maybe if you managed to convince them all that it was iNet or iWeb, the shiny new plastic browser from Apple, or maybe if you had a killer app for it, but seriously, I don't see a Firefox derivative replacing Firefox unless the name is moderately similar and the app is measurably better.
Just remember how much time and money it took for Firefox to completely eclipse both Mozilla and Netscape. And Firefox was measurably better than both -- at least, by the time it was actually named Firefox.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
This bug clearly shows why Debian/Ubuntu shouldn't muck with the browser's source code. I wonder what additional functionality they add besides disabling the 'Check for updates' button.
f ox/+bug/64844
And of course security updates. It would benefit everyone if they just send patches upstream.
https://launchpad.net/distros/ubuntu/+source/fire
I hope ubuntu sticks with the vanilla browser.
Sent from my desktop computer
Is thunderbird affected by this or does it's artwork have a different license?
http://mjg59.livejournal.com/2006/10/10/
echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:" net@madduck
It is different enough to make Mozilla happy and similar enough to confuse users ;) Also it connotates with the better firefox than the old one.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
That's something very likely to happen. The real power of free and open source software always was and is what happens with forks. After all, that's how evolution works. An IceWeasel (and no, I did not vote for this name) being an improved, faster and even more secure browser than it's parent can easily be adopted not just by other Linux distributions, but also by MacOS (and even Windows!) users. It always begins with compatibility problems (incompatible code, license or personalities) and often creates the better software product. Let's support it and help make it strong. I vote for a full fork and substantial improvement. I would also invite all MozDevs to join IceWeasel, where a real free and open source browser will be done without "corporate governance". Greetings, Chris
"An operating system must operate."
It's been a few years since I last tried Epiphany, but I remember that it kinda sucked. The developers took GNOME's "users are idiots who need to be protected from themselves" philosophy way too far and made the software almost useless - for example, they redid bookmarks in such a way as to make them unusable for anyone with more than a trivial number of bookmarks (they didn't even call them bookmarks anymore). I seem to remember that there was a previous Gecko based gnome browser (I think it was called Galeon), which was less brain dead, but I think that project was dropped for epiphany (as epiphany was more in keeping with "protecting users from themselves").
At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
What on earth are you talking about? What debian is shipping is just firefox minus branding plus debian-specific patches. Why would anyone else have an interest in adopting that?
Your idea about a full fork shows a complete lack of understanding about how the Mozilla project works. Why would you want to fork Gecko or XULRunner just because of disagreements over a front-end that makes up 10% of the code, tops? Because that's all Firefox is. At least learn the basics about Mozilla before calling for a fork of it, otherwise you won't get far.
And for your "corporate governance" argument... Mozilla Corp. is just a subsidiary(sp?) the Mozilla Foundation created for administrative purposes. GNOME has the GNOME Foundation, Apache has the Apache Software Foundation, Python has the Python Software Foundation, GNU has the FSF. Are you calling for a fork of those projects too, to rid them of their evil governing entities?
You know, Microsoft's street address also says a lot about their mentality.
Anyone else think this has nothing to do with Software - Free, Open or Whatever - and everything to do with Mozilla's ability to sell branded Merchandise?
They should just open the Firefox Restaurant and be done with it.
erroneous: look me up in a dictionary
"Mozilla has been prompted to clarify its position on the company's
marketing blog."
Marketing blog ??
Marketing ?????
Tells me everything I need to know about this subject.
Marketing = scum and/or slime
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Your letter seems to have been delivered to slashdot by mistake. Please check the address you have for the "Debian Leaders"
(1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
Mozilla says its guidelines are clear: the use of the Firefox name is permitted only if accompanied by its logo, icons, and other artwork.
FINE. Ive been a debian user for many years - giving people permission to change the logo and mess with it is like changing my name on programs that I write. Leave my name on it and leave the logo ALONE.
Firefox is already opensource - what more do you want - to now change the logo?!? What the hell would be the point of that?? Demands and decisions like this are what will drive debian into the ground.
You will be wasting time and effort reworking the browser and coming up with your own.
why not spend this time trying to get the next release out sooner than worrying about logos?!?!?
Debian people: Stop being so stupid
~Daviddutch1964
The Debian developers are lazy and FOS. Moz caught them out and now the Debian devs are all surly and in a huff about it. Figures.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Your idea about a full fork shows a complete lack of understanding about how the Mozilla project works. Why would you want to fork Gecko or XULRunner just because of disagreements over a front-end that makes up 10% of the code, tops? Because that's all Firefox is. At least learn the basics about Mozilla before calling for a fork of it, otherwise you won't get far. I hope you are aware of the fact that FF itself started with a fork. Why would anybody? Well, the Debian community is always willing and ready to go the extra mile needed to protect the freedom of their users. Cdrecord was recently forked for very similar reasons - incompatible licenses (see wodim). You should also understand that Debian is not an unimportant hidden club of crazy extremist communists, probably time to learn something about it's organisation, size and abilities instead of teaching me Mozilla project structures. And for your "corporate governance" argument... Mozilla Corp. is just a subsidiary(sp?) the Mozilla Foundation created for administrative purposes.Obviously you did not understand - and I did not understand you. What do you mean by "just a subsidiary"? Does that mean Mozilla Corp. is "less corporate" because it's owned by a foundation? That's a faith it shares with some of the biggest corporations existing today, so the argument is interesting. Greetings, Chris
"An operating system must operate."
They're cattle, and cattle don't thank you when you fix their barn.
Mooo. Moooo-moo! Muoooh; mooooooh! MuMuMooo!
Translation: This is an insult to cattle everywhere; we proclaim a catt-wa against you and we know where you live!
I hope you are aware of the fact that FF itself started with a fork.
Just of the front-end. When you said you'd like a "full fork" I took it to mean the whole Mozilla codebase, Gecko and all. I may have misunderstood you.
the Debian community is always willing and ready to go the extra mile needed to protect the freedom of their users.
Yes, and they have always been, but I disagree with this move. I value software freedom highly -- when I ordered a ThinkPad last week, I chose a model with an Intel GMA 950 instead of one with an ATI chip, in spite of the lower screen resolution I'll get, just to avoid having to run a non-free driver -- but for me, software freedom is about code, not graphics.
You should also understand that Debian is not an unimportant hidden club of crazy extremist communists, probably time to learn something about it's organisation, size and abilities instead of teaching me Mozilla project structures.
I am well aware of that. I don't know on what you base your assumption that I'm not. I like Debian for both ideological and technical reasons.
Does that mean Mozilla Corp. is "less corporate" because it's owned by a foundation?
My point was that Mozilla Corp. is, in essence, just a legal entity set up by the Mozilla project for administrative purposes, similar to what the GNOME Foundation is for GNOME, and the other examples I listed. I just don't understand why you think that being incorporated makes Mozilla's legal entity more inherently evil than for example the GNOME Foundation.
You know, Microsoft's street address also says a lot about their mentality.
On another front: how do you feel about patch policies? This apparently started out as a trademarked graphic problem, and then MoCo decided to expand it, and demand rights of approval of every Debian patch.
What would happen if every open source software group demanded that the Debian Security team seek their approval on every move they make?
You understand there may be no difference between a "Corporation" and a "Foundation" but it's name, but the name difference alone could create different behavior, by attracting different people and/or encouraging different attitudes.
I just don't understand why you think that being incorporated makes Mozilla's legal entity more inherently evil than for example the GNOME Foundation.
What would be the reason to build two different legal entities instead of just one? Mozilla runs the Foundation AND the Corp., while most other projects stick with a foundation only. Have a closer look at who/where is in charge and legally entitled to decide, and have also a very close look at who owns the shares, and how they might be distributed in the future. Such examination of Mozilla's legal framework will help you to answer your question.
And despite the ridiculous logo/trademark discussion - did you recognize that Mozilla is the only bigger "free & open source" project with GNU/GPL licensed products requesting patch reviews/control and legitimize this with "trademark protection"? That's actually an ugly abuse of the GPL - if not an illegal step.
Greetings, Chris
"An operating system must operate."
Oddly enough, Mac OSX doesn't seem to do this either... I was helping a computer illiterate person with her new Mac laptop recently. She couldn't figure out how to launch a web browser. There's a band of gigantic flashy graphics going across the screen, but if any of those launch a browser, I couldn't find it. I had to go browsing around on the hard drive, and when I saw "safari" I recognized that as a web browser, but there's no way a total beginner would know that. And that's the famed Easy To Use macintosh, no less.
Ok now, click on the Ice Weasel icon...
What would be the reason to build two different legal entities instead of just one?
/. story about the Corporation's launch: "Don't let the word "commercial" scare you, the new Mozilla Corporation (as it has been dubbed) will be owned 100% by the Mozilla Foundation. The change is mostly a legal/tax thing to avoid the problems of pursuing revenue-generating avenues while remaining a non-profit. There will be no change to the development process and end-users won't notice much difference either.". They are generating a lot of money, mostly from Google, and being a corporation makes it easier to manage those funds for the good of the whole Mozilla project.
That question was answered very well in the
Have a closer look at who/where is in charge and legally entitled to decide, and have also a very close look at who owns the shares, and how they might be distributed in the future. Such examination of Mozilla's legal framework will help you to answer your question.
Now I'm beginning to suspect that you are simply trolling. The Mozilla Corporation is owned 100% by the Mozilla Foundation, and there is no way that is going to change. It's basically the same people overseeing the project as it has been ever since Netscape freed their source code. People like Mitchell Baker, Brendan Eich and Frank Hecker, to name a few.
And despite the ridiculous logo/trademark discussion - did you recognize that Mozilla is the only bigger "free & open source" project with GNU/GPL licensed products requesting patch reviews/control and legitimize this with "trademark protection"? That's actually an ugly abuse of the GPL - if not an illegal step.
Okay, now I'm almost *convinced* that you're trolling. You can download the source tarball for the latest firefox from ftp.mozilla.org and change WHATEVER YOU WANT it redistribute it HOWEVER YOU WANT. The source you download is already configured not to use the --enable-official-branding switch. Mozilla only requests patch review when you enable that switch, something that you specifically, intentionally need to do to switch on the official branding. The suggestion that there could be something illegal about that is absurd.
You know, Microsoft's street address also says a lot about their mentality.
Sorry, but you're wrong. The patch approval thing was there from the start. Read the bug. From the initial description: "calling the browser Firefox requires the same approvals as are required for using the logo and other artwork".
You need to understand that "Firefox" is a brand which ordinary end users are starting to recognize. Most packages in debian are not. Look, when a security issue comes up in an old version of Firefox which is no longer supported by mozilla, why can't debian just work with upstream to produce one fix which all distros can take advantage of, and which can be checked into mozilla.org CVS? Just because MoCo no longer pays people to work on a specific branch doesn't mean Debian or others can't get patches checked in. This has happened in the past where Sun or IBM (IIRC) took over old branches that were abandoned by Mozilla.
You know, Microsoft's street address also says a lot about their mentality.
As I just wrote in my reply to your other post, no, they have not; the issue you mentioned was brought up in the initial bug description.
But this *is* the "Mozilla group". It's still the *same people* who are in control!
I find this speculation kind of paranoid...
You know, Microsoft's street address also says a lot about their mentality.
I just want to say kudos on a well worded summary of the situation. There are a lot of people here that don't seem to understand what exactly is happening. I hope they read your post.
Bug #354622, posted 27 Feb 2006, says that the previously agreed on compromise (using the name without the logos) is no good anymore. (Try re-reading the very sentence you quoted).
Bug #354622, posted 20 Sep 2006, then includes the requirement: "All changes the distributor wishes to make to the source code must be provided as discrete patches, along with a description of why the change is required"
Okay. I'm turning on the understanding... Hm. Nothing is changing in my worldview. Perhaps I understood this already.Ah, I get it. Firefox is hot and Debian needs to bend over and kiss their toes.
- I would be very surprised if they don't kick patches back upstream.
- Debian maintains Firefox code long after Mozilla has abandoned it.
- The idea of letting a vulnerability sit in "stable" while
waiting for bureacratic approval from upstream does not sit well.
Presuming this is all correct, it doesn't change the problem: Seeking prior approval before they get to patch their own distro...Please re-read what I was replying to. You asked "What would happen if every open source software group demanded that the Debian Security team seek their approval on every move they make?". I was explaining why that won't ever happen, showing that your point was irrelevant.
Please read what BZ wrote here.
Those are the rules if you want to ship something you call "Firefox", and I don't see a problem with that.
You know, Microsoft's street address also says a lot about their mentality.
The users are the ones interacting with the software. If this section is relevant, you're modifying and publicly performing it.
The draft reads "clearly not permitted"; "not clearly permitted" is your own invention.