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

Iceweasel?

[Blakey Rat]

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.)

Re:Iceweasel?

[glittalogik]

Couldn't Mozilla just have an alternate version called FreeFox with a modified logo - still recognisably fox-like - and allow the hardcore anti-non-free distros (Debian, Ubuntu et al)to adopt that? How about DebianFox? There's internal capitalisation to appease to programmers' naming sensibilities, and everyone else would know what the hell they were talking about. Seriously, not that hard, guys.

Re:Iceweasel?

[BinaryOpty]

A better name would have been "Waterweasel," carrying over the alliteration Firefox has while being it's theoretical opposite still.

Re:Iceweasel?

[EricBoyd]

Dude, an even better name would have been "IceHound". A Hound is much more the "opposite" of fox than Weasel will ever be :-)

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.

Re:Iceweasel?

[cammoblammo]

Dude, do you know what alliteration is?

Re:Iceweasel?

[JourneyExpertApe]

You make it sound so easy. Have you ever tried compiling Firefox? It's like trying to build a car from parts with a one-page instruction manual. ;)

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?

[bursch-X]

That's what I thought. OK, Debian wants to be all GPL and free (speech) and be completely religious about those issues, fine. But then they also say, we want to use Firefox with the Firefox name (we want to profit from Firefox' name value), but we also want to change it in ways that was not provided by the license (while using the Firefox name & logo).

DUDES! If you want to use Firefox in the "Firefox" brandend incarnation, you abide to their rules. You're so anal about your own licensing being free only and GPL throughout, but when it comes to other licenses you suddenly want them all to bend over?

Well fuck you Debian. If you want others to respect your licensing scheme and your decision to be all free and free only, then DO respect other license terms as well... geez.

You just can't have the cake and eat it.

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).

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.

Re:Iceweasel?

[Infernal Device]

I doubt you'll see any real innovation, since software engineering will be controlled by whomever has the most money to pass laws giving real teeth to infringements upon someone's software domain.

A different (more realistic) side effect: a lot of Open/Libre code is written as an adjunct to paid programmer's work (ie., as a hobby). Get rid of patents, copyrights, etc., the paid work becomes worthless and along with it, programmers. Who then have to find other work which will most likely not afford them the luxury of time or money to write the Open/Libre code.

Re:Iceweasel?

[jonasj]

Please stop differentiating between Mozilla Foundation and Mozilla Corporation like that to make it sound like MoFo are nice people and MoCo are evil. Mozilla Corporation is just a front they set up for legal and tax-related reasons. It's the exact same people running the project now as before.

Re:Iceweasel?

[Ash Vince]

Good on Debian for sticking to their guns, let's hope enough distributions have the balls to stick by their guns and start refusing to use the FireFox logo or icons in protest.

Not sure why you say this. It seemed to me that the problem was that debian wanted to use firefox with all the firefox logos and artwork, but make some changes behind the scenes to the code. No I can understand firefox objecting to this, as if debian muck up their modifications it will reflect badly on the firefox brand, not debian.

If you want to release firefox as part of your product (with modifications) then that is your right under the GPL providiing you also release it under the GPL. But you may not use the Logo's and artwork that come with firefox as you are no longer releasing firefox, you are releasing your bastardised version of firefox so need to label it as such. That way if you release complete crap it reflects badly on you, not the Mozilla corp.

I love your comment about the capitalistic stuff, once upon a time I agreed with this. Then I got a job and joined the real world.
What Mozilla are actually trying to do is protect their own public image, it has nothing to do with monopolies or market abuse of any kind.

Re:Iceweasel?

[xenocide2]

Actually, most of the changes revolved around removing the logo, since it's current owner is not releasing it under DFSG friendly policy. I guess Mozilla's corporate council woke up to what was happening and decided to tell em they can't cherry pick Firefox branding. Debian hasn't been using the firefox icon for a quite some time. Ultimately I think it hurts Firefox's brand a bit, and debian's user friendlyness as well. What Debian distributes is basically firefox. Their changes are typically either security backports to versions Mozilla doesn't support, the aforementioned logo patch, and I think they also take out the automatic check for updates, since they already provide a system wide tool for doing this (dkpg/apt-get), in a manner that doesn't rely on limited user accounts installing software. If I were Mozilla, these changes alone wouldn't be so bad, and I'd grant Debian an exception (and I believe I read that Mozilla's council was willing to do exactly that under some conditions), except for one problem:

Debian isn't satisfied with an exception. Perhaps rightfully so. Several people have taken the liberty to capitalize on Debian's Free nature and modified and distributed Debian. To willfully package and distribute firefox as an exception would be placing a landmine for these people to step on inadvertantly. Digging through each and every package to verify that it is indeed safe to modify and redistribute is a task so large as to discourage people from ever attempting it legally. And given that Debian's existance owes to the fact that someone else gave them software freely redistributable and modifiable, it would be hypocritical not to reciprocate. So Debian naturally demands that they be able to offer the same rights that have been extended to them.

This demand finds itself at odds with Mozilla's branding efforts. Mozilla worries about a number of possible modifications being negative and associated with firefox. Not in the "aids terrorists" way, but in the "adds spyware and makes people hate firefox" way. Even the community edition version is highly resistant to changes. But that doesn't mean Debian has to agree to help promote Firefox. Hence Debian's move to IceWeasel--a complete rebranding of firefox, one I hope who's aim is to minimize the changeset from firefox to only exactly what is required to allow free redistribution without landmines.

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

[Poltras]

Say mommy, will they have many children?!?

Re:Summary

[snowgirl]

The article also states that Mozilla is expecting Debian to submit all modifications for review, and that if the modifications were not satisfactory, whether the code was in deep-freeze or not, that they would have to change the name.

A lot of this comes down to "what's in a name"? Personally, I see Debian's position as more proper within the realm of the F/OSS community. If you toute your program as open source, yet say that if anyone makes any changes to the program that you do not approve of, that they cannot use your trademark, then that certainly doesn't sound "open" and "free" to me. Especially, if your source contains all of the trademark data in the code, and altering the content requires a great deal of work.

When you come down to it, it's the same situation as I have with Windows XP. "Oh, of course you OWN the CD, you bought it. But you're only LICENSING the data on it." They hide all this un-free double plus ungood behind telling you that you're free to do whatever you want, so long as you don't screw with them.

If a program is released as free/open source under the GPL, or BSD, or any license for that matter, but contains artwork inside of it that is restricted, then that's absurd, and retarded! 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...

Let's all trade our freedom of IP expression for the shackles of another IP prison!

Re:Summary

[jmv]

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".

I think it's not that much about the logo as it is about other changes Debian makes.

No villains, and everyone lives hapily ever after. The end.

Sure, everyone is technically in their right. However, Mozilla is being very much of a pain in the ass. 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)? And then KDE could do the same, along with X.Org, OpenOffice.org, ... So you would get a Linux distro (actually, it couldn't be called Linux) and you'd find all kinds of programs you never heard about, each of them being a "rebranded" version of the official package. Or alternatively, each Linux distro would need to ask each maintainer for the permission to apply each of their patch (i.e. for every cvs/svn commit during development!). I really hope all Linux distros drop Firefox (the name, not the software) and go with the same new name (IceWeasel?). Maybe that could even make Mozilla change their decision, although I'm not too optimistic. At least it would be a name all Linux users would recognise (Firefox? What's Firefox?).

Re:Summary

[mad.frog]

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.

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

[PygmySurfer]

What if the Firefox version released with Etch absolutely sucks? What if it crashes regularly, trashes the user's home directory, and eats small children? Are user's going to blame Debian, because of their patches? No, they're going to blame Mozilla and claim Firefox sucks. Word will spread, and people will be under the mistaken impression Firefox is an unstable child eating browser from Hell. If Debian makes their patches and renames it, people will only be under the impression Iceweasel sucks.

I don't know what kind of patches Debian is applying, but they must not be trivial, if Mozilla wants to approve them before allowing distribution with their name and artwork.

The Mozilla foundation laid all of this out a long time ago. Debian knew the terms when they began using Firefox. They're free to agree to the terms or not use it.

Re:Summary

[Mr. Jaggers]

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.

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 /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.

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.

Re:Summary

[PygmySurfer]

It sounds to me Mozilla isn't worried about them making modifications to the code, its the extent of the modifications ("grave concerns around the nature and quality of some of the changes the patchset contains" as they stated). They're concerned about the stability of Firefox, and rightly so. If the changes Debian makes impacts the stability of Firefox, its Mozilla and Firefox who're going to be blamed, not Debian.

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

[telekon]

Jesus. Does this mean we need to come up with some sort of corollary to GPL copylefting by using trademark law to un-trademark trademarks?

And what do we call that? GiftMark?

Copylefted, giftmarked... what's the opposite of patent? Suede?

God, jokes about leather... that's a low, even for slashdot.

Re:Summary

[jmv]

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.

You're getting it wrong here. It would mean that Debian would have "TROLL 2.10 plus some stuff that I thought might cool and without the stuff I thought I didn't need", and RedHat would have "EMONG 2.10 plus some stuff that I thought might cool and without the stuff I thought I didn't need" and so on. Distribution are *integrators*, they can't just ship everything unmodified (they'd all be the same otherwise). (Most) People want something polished where apps fit together and all.

Re:Summary

[Millenniumman]

If you toute your program as open source, yet say that if anyone makes any changes to the program that you do not approve of, that they cannot use your trademark, then that certainly doesn't sound "open" and "free" to me.

No one will let you use their trademark. It reflects back on them. If anyone could call a product Firefox, and put all of the Firefox graphics on there, then they can do anything in Mozilla's name. Anything includes making spyware, a virus, or just plain bad software. That would cripple Mozilla's reputation. If I took some of your code, messed with it to make it destroy a linux installation when used, and released it as your software, would you like that?

Maybe Debian should be allowed to use the name for small patches, but that would have to be a special accommodation.

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?

I prefer "WaterVole"

[@madeus]

Unfortunately it seems this guy was right on the money!

Re:Really sad...

[squiggleslash]

There is no dispute.

Mozilla doesn't want programs called "Firefox" to diverge too much from the original. Debian wants to make some changes that go beyond what the Mozilla group are happy calling "Firefox". So they've taken option #2 and renamed it.

It's just a choice. It's the choice both are happy with. Why it keeps being portrayed as some kind of war is beyond me.

Why iceweasel?

[maynard]

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.

Debian needs to relax

[Foofoobar]

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).

Re:Debian needs to relax

[Foofoobar]

Nothing is completely free. Even the name 'LINUX' is copyrighted. So why don't they fork Linux because I can't change the name? At a certain point, this argument gets tedious. Though I DO agree that if you wish to run a completely free system, you should be able to. So just move it into 'non-free' repo and leave it at that. If you want Firefox on your system and want a COMPLETELY free system, just do the build of the source yourself.

Re:Debian needs to relax

[TheRaven64]

'Linux' is trademarked, not copyrighted. Most distributions include slightly forked versions of Linux and call them 'Linux' and since trademarks have to be defended to be retained there is some doubt as to whether it would still stand up.

Absurdity

[entrylevel]

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.

Iceweasel?

[nuzak]

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.

Ubuntu status and IceWeasel Icon

[Kelson]

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?

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.

Re:The problem is at Moz's end

[noahm]

Their other option was to stop patching the hell out of Firefox and do what every other distro does - get with the program.

Get with the program? Are you serious? Should we not patch Linux either? How 'bout X?

You should read Matthew Garrett's recent blog entry about why it's a good thing (for the Mozilla Corp, Debian, and the user community at large) for Debian (or anybody else) to be allowed to distribute patches. http://mjg59.livejournal.com/68112.html

Also, you should probably read this post to the Fedora devel list that shows that Mozilla's trademark policies are a real problem not just for Debian but for other distributors as well.

noah

Re:The problem is at Moz's end

[SanityInAnarchy]

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.

Here's the problem: Suppose Mozilla were to give Debian full control, Debian patches the hell out of it, and people say "Firefox sucks! It crashes all the time on Debian!" Now, suppose Debian gave Mozilla full control, Mozilla doesn't allow Debian-specific patches required to make it work properly, so people say "Debian sucks! Firefox crashes all the time on it, but not on Ubuntu!"

Both of them have legitimate complaints.

I already made the change earlier in the year. Done right FF plugins still work so no big deal.

One big deal: A newbie coming over from Windows looking for FF plus plugins/extensions won't find it, and won't have a clue that IceWeasel is really Firefox. They should've at least attempted to make it clear that it's still Firefox, it's just Debian-specific.

I'd have to go with tradition here. Distros get to release derivative versions, and still call them by the original name. In return, distros do the best to make everything play nice, and generally will listen to reasonable requests -- for instance, Gentoo removed the ebuild that built Cedega (then WineX) from the CVS, because although it was technically legal (they allow CVS access, but charge for prebuilt packages), it made it just as easy, if not easier, for Gentoo users to use the free (CVS) version than to subscribe.

Distros have to keep in mind that users will just go and get upstream by themselves if the distro gets it wrong, or they'll switch to another distro that gets it right. Upstream has to keep in mind that if they refuse to cooperate with distros, they won't get distributed, so they should at least make an attempt to play nice with distros and other packages.

In this case, neither is willing to allow full control, and both are paranoid that the other side will tarnish their good name. Because of this mutual stubbornness, both sides lose out. I will likely never prefer Debian over Ubuntu again, and not just for this reason.

Community Edition

[Noksagt]

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."

Re:Really sad...

[masklinn]

Really, I don't understand what the Debian Dev's problem was in the first place.

It's fairly simple:

• Part of the licensed Firefox artwork (icons and such) are trademarked and not available under a free license (they're, in debian-speak, "non-free")
• Debian's DFSG (its "social contract", if you will) doesn't allow anything non-free in the main distro: everything in the main distro must be freely modifiable at will by any user (1)
• As per the DFSG, the Firefox artwork therefore can't be bundled in the main Debian distro (at best, they can be relegated to non-free)
• Therefore, Debian's building and packaging system strips everything non-free from Firefox and builds what's left (using the free logo and stuff)
• But the Mozilla branding rules require that, to call a program "Firefox", you must -- among other things -- build and package the program with the licensed (non-free) artworks and icons
• In the past, the Debian maintainers had more or less struck a specific deal allowing Debian to package Firefox without the non-free stuff while still calling it Firefox
• But it looks like MozCo has decided to void that agreement, and required of Debian to either ship the branded package wholes or not ship it at all (not with the "Firefox" name anyway)

If someone tried to call Ubuntu, Mepis, or Knoppix "Debian", they would have issues too...

Probably, but what'd happen if someone rebuilt a whole Debian without including the (non-free) debian logo? Because that's what'd be equivalent to the situation between Debian and MozCo

(1): the Debian logo is non-free though, and this is considered a bug by the way

PS: this post was written with Mozilla Sunbeaver

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:Matt Groening - Love is ...

[BorgCopyeditor]

Thank you for bringing out what I've been thinking since I heard that this was what they were calling it!

...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.)

Re:It is a BIG Deal

[mpapet]

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.

Shades of GPL3?

[Fujisawa Sensei]

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/

Debian Official Use Logo License

Copyright (c) 1999 Software in the Public Interest

1. This logo may only be used if:
   • the product it is used for is made using a documented procedure as published on www.debian.org (for example official CD-creation)
   • official approval is given by Debian for its use in this purpose
2. May be used if an official part of debian (decided using the rules in I) is part of the complete product, if it is made clear that only this part is officially approved
3. We reserve the right to revoke a license for a product

Permission has been given to use the official logo on clothing (shirts, hats, etc) as long as they are made by a Debian developer and not sold for profit.

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.

It's all about the trademark

[QuantumG]

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.

Iceweasel

[Gabesword]

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.

So can I use the name "Debian" freely, then?

[mad.frog]

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?)

Re:So can I use the name "Debian" freely, then?

[kilgortrout]

The Debian Common Core Alliance(DCCA) was already slapped down by the Debian Project for the unauthorized use of "Debian" in the DCCA's name. Oh, the irony!!

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.")

As a sort-of-almost-not-quite-yet sdk

[bahwi]

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!

[sbaker]

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.

When Firefox ceases to be Firefox...

[9mind]

1) Debian doesn't want to use the offical patch system (i.e wait on Firefox's update approval process, etc.)
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?

Iceweasel?

[SwashbucklingCowboy]

That's extremely childish.

Re:What about Linux?

[SirTalon42]

Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds, though hes never told Debian, Fedora Project, Ubuntu, Gentoo, RedHat, Linspire, Xandros, SuSE, that they couldn't ship a patched kernel and still call it Linux (pretty much every Linux distro adds patches to the kernel they ship).

HAH! That's brilliant!

[deek]

... IceWeasel! What a great name. I laughed my arse off when I saw this.

  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".

A revelation

[petrus4]

From Merriam-Webster:-

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 /-"trer-&-lE, -'trer-/ adverb
- contrariness /-"trer-E-n&s, -'trer-/ noun

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.

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:It is a BIG Deal

[SirTalon42]

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.

Matthew Garrett on the situation

[alfino]

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

IceWeasel beats FireFox usage stats by end of 2007

[wmaster]

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