Absolutely.:-) I live in the UK too, and would love someone to sign up to be a Mozilla merchandise distributor in the UK. If you know anyone who wants to do that, get them to email licensing@mozilla.org and we'll talk.
Its journey to its current form traversed many many different languages with each translator having their own agendas.
That's certainly not true - today's English Bibles are directly translated from the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic.
I'm not going to get into a point-by-point argument, but here's a challenge. Investigate my above statement about translation - you will find that it's true. Then ask yourself: if I was mistaken about something as basic to Christianity as this, could it be that I need to investigate it more before condemning it out of hand as "in no way verifiable"?
The Mozilla Foundation is increasing the cost (in terms of work that has to be done) to release a distro.
That's a very good point. We want to make it as little extra effort as possible. So, for example, if you just pull and build Firefox it builds fine, but with non-trademarked artwork. You have to make an effort (extra option to configure) to use the trademarked stuff. This is the sort of thing we mean.
That deals with the artwork, but not the name. We may end up with slightly less strict rules for the name, if we can get away with it under trademark law - a sort of Quality Assurance in arrears. That might deal with a lot of the problems.
what's to stop companies doing it with data files that are required for the software to function fully?
Nothing - but then, it never has been. Every license apart from the GPL (BSD, Apache, X, MPL) allows a company, should it choose to, to keep back some of its source. This is a point utterly unrelated to the current trademark discussion.
Do you have to substitute other images, or can you just delete the files?
By default, the images you get are MPLed, not trademarked, and free for anyone to use. You have to add a configure option (--use-official-images) in order to pull and build the trademarked images.
So, to avoid the trademarks issue, you simply have to do nothing:-)
Your scenario is perfectly possible today - the MPL permits this, and always has. Netscape did something similar (although it co-operated with the community.) For example, the AIM module was closed source. This has nothing to do with trademarks.
As I see it, for a piece of software to be open source, you need to be allowed to redistribute and use all of the sources needed to build the entire thing.
Mozilla is still open source, even under that (actually incorrect) definition. The trademarked artwork is not required to build it.
So what if Linus tomorrow says that, you can not modify my kernel and sell it as Linux?
It's his trademark - he can do what he likes with it. Although he'd probably have trouble reigning it in like that, after such a long time with a generous set of permissions (which is exactly the problem we are trying to avoid.)
Note that what you suggest is not what the Mozilla Foundation is saying about Firefox. There are lots of people modifying Firefox and still calling it that - they've just got in touch with us and come to an arrangement.
And worst what if Linus says, ok you are using my kernel , so pay me now ?
He can't say that. This is what the GPL is all about. The code for both Linux and Firefox is free, and no-one can change that.
The artwork certainly isn't free. It's a point for debate whether names have to be free to be included. After all, Debian maintains some control over who uses its name and logos to brand Linux distributions. Doesn't it?
But you all knew this, and still made the decision to mess with everybody else.
It does contain dodgy translating, which has been pointed out by many people, atheist & otherwise.
Which version are you referring to? I normally use an NIV (New International Version), which is pretty good. The ESV (English Standard Version) is considered a bit better by some, but the English is slightly more stilted.
But let's not get distracted here. Arguments about a few phrases aside, the message and claim of the Bible is clear to Christian and atheist alike. The only difference between the two is the response they make to it.
Oh, I see. By "domestic", you mean "in the USA". As I'm in the UK, that wasn't clear.
It's simply ludicrous at this point to restrict domestic merchandise completely
I believe that the trademark licensees who run the Mozilla store have an exclusive license (although I'm not certain.) In that case, it's perfectly reasonable - and, in fact, required by our contract with them - to restrict other merchandise.
Its journey to its current form traversed many many different languages with each translator having their own agendas.
That's simply not true. A current modern English version is translated directly from the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. And enough people know these languages that if a translation contains a mistake, people point it out. For example, the New World Translation used by the Jehovah's Witnesses is held by most Hebrew and Greek scholars to be full of bad translation (in order to support their theology.)
There are plenty of atheist scholars who'd be happy to point out if a mainstream version of the Bible contained dodgy translating.
This is in addition to the fact that whenever you translate something as large as the Bible you lose things
It's true that no translation can ever perfectly capture the meaning of the original while using the same number of words. But you can do it if you just use enough words - hence things like 'Amplified Bibles', which are much thicker than the ordinary ones because they take extreme care to capture every nuance of the original.
But that doesn't mean that a same-length translation is of no value.
How people could dedicate a way of life to a book
The way of life is not dedicated to a book, but to a person - Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Christianity is about knowing and loving Him.
It seems to me that Free Software shouldn't be encumbered by trademark issues any more than is required by current trademark law.
We are trying to achieve two things: maintain our trademarks (i.e. do what is required by trademark law) and maintainq quality (so Gator don't release a browser with built-in spyware branded Firefox, for example.)
I sure hope the foundation doesn't become _overly_ concerned with legal matters; that is the path to boorishness.
We'll be as concerned with them as the actions of others force us to be:-)
I think that the foundation shouldn't restrict domestic, unofficial merchandise.
Even if it falls apart the first time you wash it?
But how do you distinguish legally between a set of fixes which make it run on FreeBSD, and a set of fixes which add spyware? One should arguably be called Firefox, the other certainly shouldn't.
I think you have a good point - the rules for the name should be slightly different, and perhaps less strict, than the rules for the logos. We're still working out the best way to proceed on this (and working with the Debian Firefox maintainer), so input is very much valued.
Tell me again how saying "these four graphics files and this name are not part of the license you get when we hand you a whole load of Free code" is "incompatible with the free software community"?
If you're worried that derivitave works will reflect poorly on your work, Free Software might not be for you.
How so? See the Apache license, for example - it says you can't endorse any derivative works with their trademarks. Other versions of the BSD licenses say the same. There are a large body of free software hackers who believe they shouldn't have to put their name or their trademarked brand names on (potentially) rubbish derivatives.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, so I already replied to the grandparent once. :-)
Slashdot's threading was a bit confusing and I thought it had lost my comment. I didn't have time to rewrite it, so I wrote a shorter one.
But my point still stands.
Gerv
Maybe I should get in touch with Mozilla?
:-) I live in the UK too, and would love someone to sign up to be a Mozilla merchandise distributor in the UK. If you know anyone who wants to do that, get them to email licensing@mozilla.org and we'll talk.
;-)
Absolutely.
Gerv
(gerv@mozilla.org
Its journey to its current form traversed many many different languages with each translator having their own agendas.
That's certainly not true - today's English Bibles are directly translated from the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic.
I'm not going to get into a point-by-point argument, but here's a challenge. Investigate my above statement about translation - you will find that it's true. Then ask yourself: if I was mistaken about something as basic to Christianity as this, could it be that I need to investigate it more before condemning it out of hand as "in no way verifiable"?
Gerv
The Mozilla Foundation is increasing the cost (in terms of work that has to be done) to release a distro.
That's a very good point. We want to make it as little extra effort as possible. So, for example, if you just pull and build Firefox it builds fine, but with non-trademarked artwork. You have to make an effort (extra option to configure) to use the trademarked stuff. This is the sort of thing we mean.
That deals with the artwork, but not the name. We may end up with slightly less strict rules for the name, if we can get away with it under trademark law - a sort of Quality Assurance in arrears. That might deal with a lot of the problems.
Suggestions welcome.
Gerv
what's to stop companies doing it with data files that are required for the software to function fully?
Nothing - but then, it never has been. Every license apart from the GPL (BSD, Apache, X, MPL) allows a company, should it choose to, to keep back some of its source. This is a point utterly unrelated to the current trademark discussion.
Gerv
Do you have to substitute other images, or can you just delete the files?
:-)
By default, the images you get are MPLed, not trademarked, and free for anyone to use. You have to add a configure option (--use-official-images) in order to pull and build the trademarked images.
So, to avoid the trademarks issue, you simply have to do nothing
Gerv
Your scenario is perfectly possible today - the MPL permits this, and always has. Netscape did something similar (although it co-operated with the community.) For example, the AIM module was closed source. This has nothing to do with trademarks.
As I see it, for a piece of software to be open source, you need to be allowed to redistribute and use all of the sources needed to build the entire thing.
Mozilla is still open source, even under that (actually incorrect) definition. The trademarked artwork is not required to build it.
Gerv
So what if Linus tomorrow says that, you can not modify my kernel and sell it as Linux?
It's his trademark - he can do what he likes with it. Although he'd probably have trouble reigning it in like that, after such a long time with a generous set of permissions (which is exactly the problem we are trying to avoid.)
Note that what you suggest is not what the Mozilla Foundation is saying about Firefox. There are lots of people modifying Firefox and still calling it that - they've just got in touch with us and come to an arrangement.
And worst what if Linus says, ok you are using my kernel , so pay me now ?
He can't say that. This is what the GPL is all about. The code for both Linux and Firefox is free, and no-one can change that.
Gerv
This is simply not true. It's not like its a problem with the other tens of thousands of free software packages
The browser is in a somewhat unique position in this respect. After all, you don't get spyware for disk compression utilities or text editors.
One good idea is to use the GPL license.
Mozilla is actually moving towards a triple MPL/LGPL/GPL license. But even when that's done, it won't change the trademark position at all.
And in the case of Free Linux Distributions, the distributor gets all the blame if the mess up the patching/packaging.
That's not true - we often get bugs filed in our bug system against Debian builds, which are things working in our builds but broken in theirs.
It's just not a problem in practice.
So why do Debian have a policy about who can use their name and official logos?
Gerv
The name and artwork isn't free, period.
The artwork certainly isn't free. It's a point for debate whether names have to be free to be included. After all, Debian maintains some control over who uses its name and logos to brand Linux distributions. Doesn't it?
But you all knew this, and still made the decision to mess with everybody else.
Er, I don't understand what you mean by that.
Gerv
you're effectively prohibiting people to patch bugs in stable releases or not to use the name/logos.
No, we aren't - we're just saying that if you want to call your changed build Firefox, get in touch and let's talk.
Gerv
As a reward now, linux distro's cannot use the logos or names for their mozilla builds.
That's not true - they just have to get in touch with us and work something out.
Gerv
It does contain dodgy translating, which has been pointed out by many people, atheist & otherwise.
Which version are you referring to? I normally use an NIV (New International Version), which is pretty good. The ESV (English Standard Version) is considered a bit better by some, but the English is slightly more stilted.
But let's not get distracted here. Arguments about a few phrases aside, the message and claim of the Bible is clear to Christian and atheist alike. The only difference between the two is the response they make to it.
Gerv
Oh, I see. By "domestic", you mean "in the USA". As I'm in the UK, that wasn't clear.
It's simply ludicrous at this point to restrict domestic merchandise completely
I believe that the trademark licensees who run the Mozilla store have an exclusive license (although I'm not certain.) In that case, it's perfectly reasonable - and, in fact, required by our contract with them - to restrict other merchandise.
Gerv
Its journey to its current form traversed many many different languages with each translator having their own agendas.
That's simply not true. A current modern English version is translated directly from the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. And enough people know these languages that if a translation contains a mistake, people point it out. For example, the New World Translation used by the Jehovah's Witnesses is held by most Hebrew and Greek scholars to be full of bad translation (in order to support their theology.)
There are plenty of atheist scholars who'd be happy to point out if a mainstream version of the Bible contained dodgy translating.
This is in addition to the fact that whenever you translate something as large as the Bible you lose things
It's true that no translation can ever perfectly capture the meaning of the original while using the same number of words. But you can do it if you just use enough words - hence things like 'Amplified Bibles', which are much thicker than the ordinary ones because they take extreme care to capture every nuance of the original.
But that doesn't mean that a same-length translation is of no value.
How people could dedicate a way of life to a book
The way of life is not dedicated to a book, but to a person - Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Christianity is about knowing and loving Him.
Gerv
It seems to me that Free Software shouldn't be encumbered by trademark issues any more than is required by current trademark law.
:-)
We are trying to achieve two things: maintain our trademarks (i.e. do what is required by trademark law) and maintainq quality (so Gator don't release a browser with built-in spyware branded Firefox, for example.)
I sure hope the foundation doesn't become _overly_ concerned with legal matters; that is the path to boorishness.
We'll be as concerned with them as the actions of others force us to be
I think that the foundation shouldn't restrict domestic, unofficial merchandise.
Even if it falls apart the first time you wash it?
Gerv
But how do you distinguish legally between a set of fixes which make it run on FreeBSD, and a set of fixes which add spyware? One should arguably be called Firefox, the other certainly shouldn't.
Gerv
I think you have a good point - the rules for the name should be slightly different, and perhaps less strict, than the rules for the logos. We're still working out the best way to proceed on this (and working with the Debian Firefox maintainer), so input is very much valued.
Gerv
Neither seems to be infringing, so I think you are OK :-)
Gerv
If the MPL does NOT give me a license to copy/use the artwork, then what DOES???
:-)
Emailing licensing@mozilla.org and getting permission.
When you download the source, the artwork isn't necessarily included. It gets pulled if you set the configure option.
Gerv
Everyone seems concerned about the coffee :-)
The coffee people have a deal with the Foundation. It's cool.
Gerv
Email gerv@mozilla.org outlining your problem, and I'll pass the mail on to the right person.
Gerv
The coffee guys have already negotiated a deal with the Foundation. So your addiction can continue to be fed :-)
Gerv
Tell me again how saying "these four graphics files and this name are not part of the license you get when we hand you a whole load of Free code" is "incompatible with the free software community"?
Gerv
If you're worried that derivitave works will reflect poorly on your work, Free Software might not be for you.
How so? See the Apache license, for example - it says you can't endorse any derivative works with their trademarks. Other versions of the BSD licenses say the same. There are a large body of free software hackers who believe they shouldn't have to put their name or their trademarked brand names on (potentially) rubbish derivatives.
Gerv