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."
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
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.
Can you imagine how life would be for distros if GNOME decided it doesn't get called GNOME unless it's the official GNOME release (no modifications)?
Yes, I can imagine it.
It would fucking ROCK.
Being able to assume that "GNOME 2.10" really is "GNOME 2.10" everywhere, and not "GNOME 2.10 plus some stuff that I thought might cool and without the stuff I thought I didn't need"... well, it would make life a lot simpler for app developers.
Nope, it's pretty clear from the article that that logos and associated graphics are the issue. Trademark use conditions require that they be included. The Debian Free Software Guidelines require that they not be included. Thus, Mozilla Corporation postures some, and also attaches other strings; like the patch review & description, tagged subversion branch, prior approval of build conditions themselves, and inclusion of said graphics.
/etc/alternatives sort of way). In Debian and Ubuntu, it would be the 'sensible-browser', most likely. Folks could always still just go download the shell-archive installer from mozilla.org any time they want to and drop their own out-of-package-management version of the one true firefox.
I agree with the rest of your statement, though, and I do think that this business is a big waste of developer time and effort. Now it is really more difficult to comply adequately, depending on the nature and volume of Debian's patches.
If one were to invite prognostication from me, I'd say that this sort of response will grow, as Mozilla Corporation flexes it's muscle over trademark enforcement. I'd guess that Debian, Ubuntu, and any other distro striving to be truly free, will probably do something like perform conditions 1 and 3 anyway (publicly submit patches w/descriptions, as well as tag their divergent branch), will probably exert the GPL and use whatever build time configurations they think are best, and lastly, come up with their own artwork and graphics.
That will further their goal of using & distributing free, high-quality software (without non-free strings attached to binary data included in the final product) to their users. My guess is that creative icon-ing will make this change remarkeably less noticeable to end users. After all, there is no reason that iceweasel (et. al.) couldn't use the same (or similar) versioning and advertise itself as being 'firefox compatible' as far as extensions & page rendering go. Not to mention, that I seriously doubt it would be a violation of trademark to install a 'firefox', or 'mozilla-firefox' symbolic link (in a very
On the side of Mozilla Corp., they will either decide that this dilutes the brand, and just bend to unify everyone, or they won't care and will drop strictly-all-free sorts of GNU/Linux distributions, assuming that the market share they bring is minimal.
And that will be that. Just my guess, anyway. If Mozilla Corp is smart, they'll exclude the user-agent string from trademark issues so that at least usage statistics will show a unified product, rather ruining firefox's growing usage statistics rank in a schism.
When I grow up, I want to have Christopher Walken hair.
...except you forgot to add that this quote was meant to express Nietzsche's take on love, and not in some mythical book called "Life in Hell"--which was a late revision of multiple sources, not entirely unlike the Bible or the U.S. Constitution in that regard--but in "Love is Hell," which preceded the other "...is Hell" books. Special +1 Informatives for anyone who can list the other philosophers whose theories of life were discussed on this same page of "Love is Hell." (I can't actually remember, but I think one was Kierkegaard.)
Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.