As previously reported, Debian plans to release its newest version, Etch, in December, and wants Mozilla's Firefox Web browser to be part of the distribution. Mozilla, however, told Debian it couldn't release the software without its accompanying artwork. Now a legal expert says that the existing distinctions between copyright and trademark laws should have prevented this from becoming an issue in the first place. Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols also discusses the issue.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-06-30
The point is that the non-free license for the Firefox artwork really is a big deal for Debian
I guess this is where I disagree with Debian. The logo is trademarked, just like the Firefox name.
They seem to have no issue with using names that are trademarked, but they refuse to use a trademarked logo? (Linux is a trademark of Linus T.)
Even the name Debian is trademarked.
The logo is as much a part of the brand as the name and it I think they are entirely within their right to trademark it.
I'll bet my lunch that Firefox is not the only open source application being passed around that holds a trademark on their logo too.
Member since:2006-10-11
Posted by "snowbender": >>The point is that the non-free license for the Firefox artwork really is a big deal for Debian<<
Posted by Jody: >I guess this is where I disagree with Debian. The logo is trademarked, just like the Firefox name.<
The point is, it is a licensing issue, not a trademark issue. That's not the same -- and the point of the lawyer in the article.
Edit: fixed quotes
Edited 2006-10-11 23:19
Member since:2005-07-01
As I understand it...
Debian is not just a product, it's a base for development. Anyone can take Debian and - provided they don't touch non-free - modify and re-distibute it as much as they like without fear of breaching a license.
If someone modifies the Firefox artwork, they breach Mozilla's license. If Firefox goes into non-free, deriviative works can't incorporate it (unless they treat it as a special case and take on any legal hassles themselves). Therefore Debian are forking it to create a completely free version that everyone can use.
Member since:
2006-05-04
So the Firefox artwork has a non-free license, big deal. They have a right to protect the artwork like they have a right to protect the Firefox name.
Of course they have that right. The point is that the non-free license for the Firefox artwork really is a big deal for Debian. Debian wants to be a completely free operating system.
Debian is not being petty, Debian is sticking to its ideals.
I can understand both Mozilla's point of view regarding branding, and Debian's point of view. I also think the rename is the best solution for Debian (and Mozilla). With the rename, they can independently decide which patches they add to the official firefox code, without first needing to get permission from Mozilla. I hope this does not result in a real fork, however. (and I don't think that's the intention of the Debian developers) I hope they just keep using the official firefox code, but with the rename and any patches they think are worthwhile.