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."

Comments

Summary

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Summary

[sparkz]

A lot of American corporate lawyers want to cause confusion between copyright and trademark law, by putting them both under the umbrella of "Intellectual Property", something which does not exist in law. Copyright and Trademarks are two entirely separate things. Even Stallman and the GPL doesn't get into Trademark issues. Mozilla have a right to put whatever restrictions they like on the use of their trademarks, whatever license the code is released under. Debian can call it IceWeasel (or even something less derogatory-sounding, if they so choose), but copyright and the MPL license mean that they can still use the code. The big issue here, is that confusion about copyright vs trademarks is the result of a deliberate ploy by corporate America to confuse the public about "Intellectual Property" (IP) and "IP Rights" (IPR).

Re:Summary

[Rydia]

Just going into it basically, both trademarks and copyrights are powers assigned to congress by the same clause of the constitution (the copyright clause). The law dealing with the two is roughly parallel, using a lot of the same analyses and a large body of shared terms of art. Hell, I have 2 books sitting on my bookshelf right here specifically titled "Intellectual Property" which deal with copyrights and trademarks both, because they work rather similarly. This is how it's taught in law schools everywhere, to those who will actually end up dealing with the concepts and not going for cheap political points on websites.

I can understand that you might not agree with the way a lot of companies use IP law, but that doesn't justify mischaracterizations and bending reality to fit your own preconcieved notions of what is and what isn't.

Re:Summary

[dircha]

Especially considering section 3.3 of the MPL already carries the standard "prominent notice of change" distribution requirement that seems to work well enough for almost every other free software project out there.

Apparently this wasn't enough for the Mozilla project.

Re:Summary

[sparkz]

trademarks and copyrights are powers assigned to congress by the same clause of the constitution (the copyright clause)

That is not true. That is exactly the confusion (FUD) that I was referring to. Copyright and Trademark are entirely separate. "Intellectual Property" is a fiction, or - more accurately - a theoretical combination of (C) and (TM). In this instance, Mozilla aren't disputing (C), but are disputing (TM).

If you want a full description, feel free to get yourself a lawyer ;-)

This instance should make it obvious to you that (C) and (TM) are different issues; Mozilla are disputing Debian's rights over the Mozilla Trademark, not at all over the Copyright.

I refer you back to my original point, that it is convenient for certain (particularly large, USAian and/or Multinational, as it happens) corporations to confuse copyright and trademark law into some mush of "Intellectual Property".

The better the general public understand the difference, the better off society will be.

I can understand that you might not agree with the way a lot of companies use IP law, but that doesn't justify mischaracterizations and bending reality to fit your own preconcieved notions of what is and what isn't.

I am doing nothing of the kind. There is no "IP Law". You appear to have fallen victim to the myth that there is such a thing. An issue like this makes the difference between copyright and trademark quite clear, surely? What part of it do you not understand?

The problem is at Moz's end

[jmorris42]

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.

IceWeasel Icon - Direct Link

[Kelson]

Sorry, looks like I picked the wrong tab to paste in there. This IceWeaselIcon wiki page has several drafts.

Matt Groening - Love is ...

[khasim]

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

Re:Iceweasel?

[Kelson]

Mozilla has exactly that. There's a compile switch that lets you choose between an officially branded Firefox with the official name, icons and logos, or an unofficial version with the name of your choice and a generic icon.

The "problem" was that Debian didn't want to use this switch and go the unofficial route. Instead, they wrote a patch that would mix-and-match the official name with the unofficial icons and logos. Mozilla, having consulted their lawyers, said "Wait, you can't do that! It has to be one way or the other." They went back and forth, and finally Debian settled on going all unofficial.

Firebird, Phoenix, DCC...

[Kelson]

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.")

Re:Iceweasel?

[thebluesgnr]

Debian never wanted to go unofficial, they did so to comply with the DFSG. The Mozilla Foundation was aware that they were doing that, and they authorized Debian. Until recently, when the Mozilla Corporation changed their minds and filed a bug against Debian.

Re:Iceweasel?

[SirTalon42]

Previously the Mozilla Foundation said it was perfectly fine for Debian to release a patched version of Firefox and to keep the name, and to use the non-official artwork (the artwork that appears if you don't run make with the --enable-official-branding switch), but out of the blue the new Mozilla Corporation decided they don't want Debian to modify Firefox at ALL and be able to keep the name (unless they submit all patches to MC to have them 'approved' for their Debian's release, the problem with that is that when Debian backports security updates they wouldn't be able to release the fixed packages ASAP, they would have to wait around for the Mozilla Corporation to get around to checking it and letting them).

you are wrong

[jizmonkey]

The parent said, "If you want a full description, feel free to get yourself a lawyer."

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."

Re:Iceweasel?

[JackieBrown]

Why would mozilla maintain two versions? Debian is not asking Mozilla to maintain their browser.

I don't think you understand the implications for Debian here.

When Debian releases a stable version no upgrades may be allowed in, only security updates and those should not add new features.

Now if you actually read the bug report that Mozilla filed, they are giving Debian 2 options

1) Allow firefox to upgrade to newer versions which ruins Debian's very design of stable (plus hope other package developers don't start making the same demands.)
or
2) For every security patch that Debian want's to apply to the frozen version of firefox, they have to wait until someone from Mozilla signs off on the patch.

Matthew Garrett on the situation

[alfino]

http://mjg59.livejournal.com/2006/10/10/