Slashdot Mirror
IceWeasel — Why Closed Source Wins
engtech writes, "There's been some hype about the Debian fork of FireFox called IceWeasel. Politics aside, this is a bad idea because it fragments the user base, divides the focus, and opens the path for Microsoft and Internet Explorer 7 to regain marketshare."
Just like how Firefox fragmented the Mozilla userbase?
Exactly *how*, is Microsoft going to capitalize on a fracture of Firefox... within *Debian*? This doesn't touch the userbase that is competing with IE etc whatsoever.
After stepping back for a moment, however, I realized that the problem isn't as complex as it seems. In fact, I think it highlights something I've been saying for a while: Package systems under Linux are a broken concept.
When I was working on the Linux Desktop Distribution of the Future article, I received quite a bit of criticism for calling the package management systems a major source of breakage. In the follow-up, I was forced to point out that complete system packaging creates a massive, monolithic code base:
What we're seeing here is a legal extension of that same problem. By integrating the software into the codebase, Debian is attempting to take legal responsibility for the software. Yet the software provider (Mozilla) is already handling that responsibiity, and does not wish to give it up. On any other operating system, the binaries would get bundled (or not at all, if they're too untrustworthy) as a self-contained application, and the software provider would be allowed to continue handling updates. End of story.
In this case, Debian wants this software to be managed like all the other software they manage. Which means that taking responsibility becomes easier for them, rather than allowing the software producer to handle their own software. While this theoretically allows for a more cohesive system, that cohesiveness only goes as far as the packages checked into Debian's repository. Mozilla should be outside of that repository, but any software that's not in the repository is not well supported by the packaging system. Ergo, the process breaks down.
That's just my thoughts, anyway. I'm sure many will disagree. Loudly. And rudely. Oh well.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
How does this make Debian users use IE?
Great Intellect...
Debian's goals are to quickly patch security problems, and to backport fixes to versions declared stable for the benefit of their users.
Both these goals a) good, useful, helpful, and worthwhile, and b) in conflict with the wishes of the Mozilla Corporation.
Perhaps Mozilla could give a little here, instead of Debian. Hmm?
The Mozilla Foundation doesn't have a problem with Debian modifying FireFox. What they have a problem with is Debian modifying FireFox fairly significantly, yet continuing to call the product "FireFox". FireFox(tm) is a specific codebase, maintained by the Mozilla Foundation. I think they have every right to ask Debian to rename their fork, so that end users are not confused, thinking that bugs in Iceweasel are general FireFox bugs (in some cases, they may be, in other cases, not).
I don't see anything wrong with asking someone who forks your codebase to use a different name to avoid confusion. What's the problem with that?
Plus, there is this thing about Trademark law. If you don't actively police it, you can lose the right to the mark.
"...and opens the path for Microsoft and Internet Explorer 7 to regain marketshare."
This is a worthless mindset. The goal should be to release a good product that end users appreciate. Competition will make both products better.
As I understand it Debian does contribute patches back to Mozilla. But Debian wants to backport security fixes to versions of Firefox that Moz. Foundation no longer supports. I'm pretty sure this is true.
As I understand it Mozilla used to let them call these versions "Debian Firefox" but now they don't anymore. I'm not entirely sure this is quite right. Also there's a DFSG issue that I don't remember the details of.
Mozilla Foundation doesn't have to "deal with" Iceweasel at all, except to respond to all of this publicity. This looks "big-picture bad" to some people but to Debian keeping the stable branch secure is more important than Firefox advocacy. In other words, the "small-picture" disagreements that made this happen are actually the big picture.
For most users there's not much of a reason to use package management for a program like Firefox. It's frequently-updated and for most people frequently-used, and it has an auto-update system if you use the official binaries. People will usually want the updated version. For people that have a good reason to stick with a really old version, or who don't use the browser enough to keep it updated independently of other software Iceweasel gives them their security backports. And I can understand why MoFo wouldn't want their trademark applied to software that's maintained by Debian.
Of course nobody likes the name. You're not supposed to. It's Firefox turned on its head. It's supposed to be annoying to the Firefox developers, to spur them to do something about this.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
If it is to be renamed then why not do it with some reference to the reason. A name like FreeFox or similar would at least maintain symbolic connection to the parent while underscoring that it is a wholly non-proprietary distribution of that parent. 'IceWeasel' sounds directly antagonistic of FireFox itself. If FireFox is hot, then it's alternative must be cold. It itself reads as a childishly extremist 'reaction' to what should otherwise be understood as a wise and considered move, for real and sane reasons.
The sheer lack of foresight amazes me. For years afterward we'll be hearing damaging myths that "FireFox doesn't install on Linux". Newbies coming into IRC to ask how to install FireFox will be pointed to what's later knows as the longest running $TOPIC in history. 'IceWeasel' just adds needless noise for all those millions considering switching to a Linux OS. FireFox is arguably the most important FOSS application for the desktop, if only because of it's notoriety. The name itself is larger than the software it represents. fscking with this reveals new depths of disregard for the adoption of Desktop Linux more generally.
Debian aims to offer support for version of software that are in it's stable distro. Firefox 1.0.7 I believe is still supported by debian stable, yet mozilla has long stopped supporting it. Debian needs to be able to maintain a patch set to keep unsupported version of firefox stable and Mozilla is unwilling to budge on trademark enforcement (and well they shouldn't.)
They could simply have moved it to non-free
No they couldn't. The objective of the Debian Project is to create the universal free operating system. The existance of the non-free branch is a minor evil, and there have been discussions not too long ago to remove it.
What do I care, I use Ubuntu. Debian is becoming the new XFree86.
You sir are an ignorant. Read the words of Mark Shuttleworth when he says that I'm of the opinion that Ubuntu could not exist without Debian . Debian is a much bigger and important project than you think.
I'm appalled that people detests someone or something for standing up for their rights and their freedom, I don't understand why.
Just a few years ago we were talking about making sure Open Source software provided users alternatives to proprietary software. Forking has always been an issue, but the gestalt view seemed to be that ultimately even in a forking situation, the better software would "win" in the sense that it would continue to be developed. The focus was not on defeating proprietary software in the marketplace, but in making truly great software.
Now it's 2006. Linux is a huge force in the IT world. Firefox has stolen marketshare from IE. These nibbles of success have changed the dialogue, and now marketing is as important if not more important than diversity. Choice is good and all, but getting computer users to make "the correct choice" is perhaps now the ultimate goal. Consumers may become confused by so many browser choices! Ah yes, let's not confuse them. Let's market and package Firefox so the choice will be clear.
I understand the rationale for not forking Firefox. But that's a tactical issue in a small skirmish. The real war is about choice. I'm for it.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
I'm sorry, you lose. This is not allowed - unless you remove the firefox artwork and change the name, or submit to specific per-change licensing from Mozilla (which Debian's policies do not permit, for a number of practical and philosophical reasons). That is what Mozilla have said to Debian. If you do not agree with this, feel free to take up the issue with Mozilla, because Debian will presume them to be correct on any matters regarding what is and is not acceptable here.
This is not at all true. Debian has been saying to the Mozilla crew for a long time (since several years ago when this first came up): "we'll leave the name alone if you don't give us a reason to change it, but we'll change it if you want". Mozilla previously said "okay, leave it alone for now" but now they came back to Debian and said "you've got to change it now". At no point did Debian attempt to "get a free ride", they just did exactly what the Mozilla developers asked for.
This option has never been offered by Mozilla in respect of Debian's support for Firefox 1.0 (which is still having security fixes applied in Debian, and which is known to have users that are either unable or unwilling to upgrade).
Let us recap with a statement from Mike Connor, speaking officially on behalf of Mozilla (on the subject of whether or not Debian can call the version it ships "Firefox"):