OSNews

Why shouldn't they be allowed to control how their branding is used?

So why have they all of a sudden done this, Firefox have been with many distros for agers now. Dont Mozilla want their browser to be known by firefox just for the sake of a tradmark.

You can have our browser but call it something else?, dont sound like openness and freedom to me.

As far as I can remember the Mozilla Trademark policy has been like that for well over a year.

the issue is Debian is releasing patches to firefox that are not authorized by mozilla. Mozilla does not want to be responsible because debian modified something. It makes sense to me...

The question is what's up with Debian screwing with Firefox? If they don't like the licensing then let people download directly from Mozilla instead of forking their own version off just because Mozilla trademarked the name.

and you still will be able to do this! Download firefox from the website - install it. Or, I am sure that someone will maintain a .deb of it and it may be available in non-free.

However, debian proper has a strict policy of what can be included in the free branch. A non-trademarked and properly free version of firefox included - how is that wrong?

I think Mozilla are perfectly within their rights, Firefox is finally getting brand recognition. Whats the point of them spending all this money on marketing if each distro then changes the name of the software THEY produced?!

http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html

It's within Debian's rights. I think it's silly, but it's probably just Debian following its own rules without exception.
I've never liked intolerant rules much, but oh well. It's not really a big deal...

Isn't Firefox under the Mozilla Public License? The GPL may be similar, but the link is irrelevant.

It's the same idea, it's a modified license. The point is that the idea of gpl/mpl/qpl software is to make it free for users to repackage it.

But I think they have to rename it, and not call it "firefox".

http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html

It's within Debian's rights. I think it's silly, but it's probably just Debian following its own rules without exception.
I've never liked intolerant rules much, but oh well. It's not really a big deal...

Umm, Firefox is licensed under the Mozilla Public License, not the GPL.

http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/

Umm, Firefox is licensed under the Mozilla Public License, not the GPL.

From the same link:

This page details the licenses under which Mozilla source code can be obtained. All of the code which makes up the core Mozilla products is licensed under a MPL/GPL/LGPL tri-license or a licence compatible with all three of those (e.g. the BSD licence). Other code in our repository may have different licensing terms.

you mean software, they, free software developpers that get zero money from mozilla, working at zero cost in their free time, and maybe even using debian, right ?

you probably missed the point of free software. it isn't adware.

Anyone who understands this understands that this isn't a BAD thing. Mozilla says

you have two choices:
1. You can use Firefox AS IS.
2. You can use Firefox, but you can't use the icon and you can't refer to it as Firefox, because once you change ANYTHING in the code at all, it's no longer Firefox. If you do this, you have to run ALL changes by us.

Essentially, Mozilla doesn't want them to release something with bugs or holes under the name of Firefox. Debian thinks they should have complete control. But once they change it, it's NO LONG FIREFOX! It's just "based on" Firefox.

"Essentially, Mozilla doesn't want them to release something with bugs or holes under the name of Firefox."

Yeah. Thats the prerogative of Mozilla. 64 times so far this year too!

http://www.mozilla.org/security/announce/

I guess you can do a better job then! Folk are quick to criticise when browsers have bugs, but there are precious few of them which are bug-free. Have you considered that this kind of software is damned hard to get perfect?

Essentially, Mozilla doesn't want them to release something with bugs or holes under the name of Firefox. Debian thinks they should have complete control. But once they change it, it's NO LONG FIREFOX! It's just "based on" Firefox.

This is all true, in a mean technical and legal sense. That which is "Firefox" is the code that is released by Mozilla as Firefox; anything else is merely another mozilla-based browser.

On the other hand... Linux is trademarked Linus Torvalds. No distribution I know of uses the stock kernel as released by Linus, yet they all claim to be Linux and use the trademark both on the system and in advertising. Why can they get away with it? Because Linus is doing the Right Thing and not merely the Protect What's Ours thing. Moilla should do the Right Thing, too, but they sadly no longer have the practical, idealistic programmers in charge.

Moilla should do the Right Thing, too, but they sadly no longer have the practical, idealistic programmers in charge.

They never had. They started as a company and have never really gotten out of the mentality.

The Mozilla Foundation is no different on trademarks than Debian is, or Linus Torvalds.

Mozilla has its set of rules, and Debian has its own rules as well.. and they are in conflict.

Solution: Give it another name. And that's what they're doing.
EOF

You have to do this stuff to protect a trademark, much like Debian itself does.

http://www.debian.org/News/1998/19980306a

I think they have to do this by the law. If they don't protect their trademark (and releasing a patched firefox can be seen as trademark infringement), then they lose their rights to it.

Stop being so reactionary and use your head for a second. Mozilla needs to maintain protect the firefox brandname...

It is more Debian extremism than speaking of freedom.

Let's take a windows user, used to firefox who wants to switch to linux.

This person install a debian and could not find firefox. This person will maybe say : "linux is crap, it doesn't have firefox".

So, this is a debian stupidity than anything more !

I think debian will include a metapackage called "firefox". they generally do.

Let's take a windows user, used to firefox who wants to switch to linux.
This person install a debian and could not find firefox. This person will maybe say : "linux is crap, it doesn't have firefox".

And what windows user will actually take the time installing debian, when debian's current installer will look like crap to them.

"Let's take a windows user, used to firefox who wants to switch to linux.
This person install a debian and could not find firefox. "

What they should see is a big button sitting there on the desktop labeled "Internet".

But somehow this point has been lost on those useability geniuses at Apple, so it could be that the Gnome/KDE folks will have problems with it as well.

The extremism and lack of listening to people is one of the biggest problems with debian.

We don't recommend their sets (including derivates) for this. The clashes we've had with developers on simple things (dselect easily comes to mind) was such that this was ineviteable.

I totally agree. Although it may be true that Mozilla can protect "their" Trade Mark, and "their" branding, they forget a few crucial things:

- Firefox and all of the Mozilla projects are open source and have been contributed to by thousands of people. Where do Mozilla get off deciding now that it's solely theirs now and they get to demand Debian has to run all patches by them?

- Debian isn't trying to fork Firefox, it just wants to distribute it, and frankly Debian is massive. Mozilla is shooting itself in the foot.

- Mozilla do not need to protect their brand like this, they really don't. Firefox is massive already, and the brand is understood. How is the brand damaged by Debian releasing it in the distribution?

Common sense prevails here. Although Mozilla may legally be right, stop and ask if legality is actually always the most important thing. Debian sticks to freedom because that is morally and ethically the right thing to do.

Good on you Debian, fight for what is right.

Under American law, they do have to protect thier brand, just like this. So common sense does not prevail.

mozilla is in the right. debian, is also changing the firefox name. so they are doing what is right also..

i mean, if someone wanted to use the debian name, debian would mail out as cease and desist letter. you just can't make your own os and call it debian. you can say based on debian. like ubuntu is. and you wouldn't be able to use the ubuntu logo and name to make your own os either.

...but in my opinion, the most likely new name is something like "Freefox".

At least it's not "freedom fLies"

"Debian is a trademark too and i'm sure Debian wouldn't allow that someone calls a modified Debian distribution Debian."

That is true. Look at the GenieOS case, which had to be renamed from "Debian Pure" (GenieOS is just a set of scripts that make installing Debian a bit easier, but the end result is 100% Debian)

and it's not true for Ubuntu. There are a lot Debian Logos in Ubuntu, but Debian didn't send a lawyer, even if there are diputes in other areas...

It's not that Debian doesen't want to be recognized as the base of the uberfamous Ubuntu

freefox? hmmm, it seem's kinda silly to make something called freefox when.. firefox is already free.

Well, everything made sense up to the part where Mozilla asked Debian to run any patches by Mozilla beforehand.

They're reminding them that if they use the Firefox name and make modifications to the code, they must be officially authorized. If they're not, then they can't use the Firefox name. That is just one more reason that Debian is planning on changing the name.

Basically what Debian is doing here, by re-branding the logo and potentially disregarding Mozilla's wish to officially authorize any patches, is violating the license agreement and forking the code. They can do it, but they must use a new name.

Edited 2006-09-28 23:21

--- "Basically what Debian is doing here, by re-branding the logo and potentially disregarding Mozilla's wish to officially authorize any patches, is violating the license agreement and forking the code."

Not at all! Debian is just a different distributer here. They are no more forking Firefox then they are forking Linux! They are also not violating any license agreement.

They are also not violating any license agreement.

Considering they are required to abide by a license agreement in order to use the "not free" trademarked Firefox name - they would essentially be essentially violating the agreement that in order to use it, they must comply with Mozilla's requests.

Thus, they are violating it unless they change the name. It seems like some people here haven't even read the article.

Close but...

The issue is that Debian is happy with the trademarked name but not happy (because of DFSG 8) with the trademarked and copyrighted logo.

However MozCo aren't willing to grant permission to use the name without the logo, and furthermore, aren't willing to allow use of either unless all Debian patches are pre-approved before release by MozCo.

As far as I could tell from the inordinately circular conversation anyway..

Well, everything made sense up to the part where Mozilla asked Debian to run any patches by Mozilla beforehand.

Does that apply to all distros? And to all software?


Yes. Fedora & Redhat already do this, and if I remember correctly so does Novell/Suse.

Hmmm why is it then that at my work (TomTom, http://www.tomtom.com) we have a customized, patched up linux kernel that we can still call linux, while the linux name is trademarked.

Also, we don't need to run the patches by Linus either to get to agree that we're running Linux on our devices....

(Yes I know Linux (as in the kernel) is not an end-user product, but legally, same thing....)

Also, we don't need to run the patches by Linus either to get to agree that we're running Linux on our devices....

If the license agreement stated that you must, and Linus himself decided to force you, you would have to legally comply at that point.

Actually, I doubt you can call it Linux directly - you maybe can say it's "Based on Linux" or "Linux-based" - but that's about all...

Edited 2006-09-28 23:37

Because you're flying under their radar. Point it out on kernel.org, maybe they'll tell you to call it "TomTomLinux."

Flying under their radar?

Are you kidding? The fact that TomToms run linux is widely known, and being the most successfull (market wise) gps navigation systems, this is often used as an example of linux success.

That doesn't mean there's a single Linux developer thinking "TomTom runs Linux, I wonder if we should go after them on trademark issues..."

RedHat do the same thing: They allow their software to be redistributed freely, but redistributors cannot do that under the Red Hat name: Thus CeNTOS is "CeNTOS Linux, based on Red Hat [Enterprise] Linux," not "CeNTOS Red Hat Linux".

Linux is under a different license than Firefox.

"Hmmm why is it then that at my work (TomTom, http://www.tomtom.com) we have a customized, patched up linux kernel that we can still call linux, while the linux name is trademarked."

Because you can't but since you are so small, they won't prosecute you. However, Linux owns all Linux trademarks, for legal purposes makes people pay for using the name, and he can easily push trademark issues against you if you get too big. This is the only way to protect your brandname. Otherwise, what is to stop Microsoft from setting up a website with the Linux name/Firefox name, tons of their logos, and at the same time introducing lots of security and stability bugs?

well that's kinda funny you see .. because it was actually ".. blind obediance to overly strict guidelines .." what a good share of debian users/devels/comunity-members/unameit were looking for when they found it ...

rules are rules for the good, and for the bad ...

Bollocks. Debian isn't dying. This isn't a problem for Debian. It's a problem for Mozilla, and therefore a non-issue for end-users.

oh no they had to change a name. its dying!! dying!!! oh please. it's still the same thing they have been shipping just under a different name.

this way debian can do their own quality control on the code. Quality is something debian puts first. what if they went the other way, and someone had a 5 year old distro that was still being supported with an unsupported browser. Debian would be better off with complete control of the code.

The Firefox people object to Debian doing its own security updates and calling the update Firefox. Since Firefox gives priority to Windows, this can put Debian's users at risk. By not using the Firefox name, they are free to do updates as they see fit.

It's too bad that Firefox has this attitude.

Mozilla releases patches for all the platforms it's browser is on at the same time. Considering the Windows platform is 90% of the PC market, I admire the Mozilla foundations continuing efforts to release simultaneously on all it's supported platforms.

When a distro like Debian makes customizations of Firefox, Mozilla needs them to pass the changes by them so that they can verify their own patches work and don't break anything. If anyone is putting Debian users at risk with this behavior, it's Debian.

If anyone has the attitude, it's Debian. They could easily stop adding Firefox to their distro and let the end user decide whether or not to use Firefox rather than taking an action that will amount to duplication of effort at best, forking Firefox at the worst.

If anyone has the attitude, it's Debian. They could easily stop adding Firefox to their distro and let the end user decide whether or not to use Firefox rather than taking an action that will amount to duplication of effort at best, forking Firefox at the worst.




Debian has their own beliefs same as mozilla. it's such a small problem nothing to it. no fork needed. it can be easily resolved with a simple name change, it's that simple.

"Since Firefox gives priority to Windows" : this is the crappiest thing I've read on this thread.

So, firefox for linux, OS-X, and others platforms are not a priority ?!

Is your brain working well ?

Good analogy and I guess that is pretty much what they actually do in fact, only not for the world in general, just the local and national manufacturers in different countries who produce their products under licence. If any of those started messing with the branding or the recipe, you would soon hear about it!!!