Fox Wars: Debian vs. Mozilla
Would you believe that two open-source powers are battling over the Firefox Fox logo? Well, believe it.
Mozilla Corp. is insisting that when a Linux distributor includes its own variation of the popular web-browser, Firefox, with its operating system, it must pass any customized code by Mozilla before using its Firefox name or Fox logo.
This is pretty straightforward. Mozilla owns the trademark on the name and logo, so they need to protect it. The company also needs to make sure that when someone clicks on "Firefox," they're running Mozilla-approved Firefox. After all, if something goes wrong with Firefox, Mozilla's programmers want to know that something went wrong with their code rather than someone else's patch.
Debian doesn't see it this way.
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
- 1808 reads
- PDF version
re: Imagine...
Yes, how dare the Mozilla Foundation after providing untold man-hours and real hard-dollars developing (and supporting) one of the more successful open-source projects declare that they want to keep QC in-house.
To top it off, they have the audacity to demand that their effort is marketed by having uniform branding.
Gosh, you'd think they were trying to present a professional and polished application to the world instead of the normal half-assed, eternally half-finished, ill-supported, ego-centric driven, garage band-esque app that the other 95% of the open source projects do.
Indeed, when your for-profit
Indeed, when your for-profit corporation's making millions of dollars in revenue based on the hard work of all those non-paid coders, it sure is important to protect that revenue-producing asset. What's a for-profit subsidiary (Mozilla, Corp.) of a non-profit organization (Mozilla Foundation) going to do with all that money, anyway? Why not hire some lawyers?
Seriously, I can understand Mozilla's position. I can understand Debian's position. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be much compromising going on. I'd prefer to see both parties work together to reach an amicable solution.
Ultimately, Firefox is open-source, so Debian can take the code and release it under another name. Despite what the Mozilla guy said, it's not like they change it a whole lot.
(By the way, if you're tired of being stuck with those crappy "95% of the open source projects," there is this other operating system called "Windows" you might be interested in.)
--
><)))°> Debian/Kanotix: http://kanotix.com
Why keep the patches?
I can see both arguments. The flaw in Debian's stand is that if Debian has genuine improvements to make, they should go upstream to Mozilla anyway.
Arguing about whether a logo is free software seems like a silly way to waste everyone's time.
More in Tux Machines
- Highlights
- Front Page
- Latest Headlines
- Archive
- Recent comments
- All-Time Popular Stories
- Hot Topics
- New Members
digiKam 7.7.0 is releasedAfter three months of active maintenance and another bug triage, the digiKam team is proud to present version 7.7.0 of its open source digital photo manager. See below the list of most important features coming with this release. |
Dilution and Misuse of the "Linux" Brand
|
Samsung, Red Hat to Work on Linux Drivers for Future TechThe metaverse is expected to uproot system design as we know it, and Samsung is one of many hardware vendors re-imagining data center infrastructure in preparation for a parallel 3D world. Samsung is working on new memory technologies that provide faster bandwidth inside hardware for data to travel between CPUs, storage and other computing resources. The company also announced it was partnering with Red Hat to ensure these technologies have Linux compatibility. |
today's howtos
|
Further from the mainstream
This seems to be another example of developers and others deciding that it's easier to beat Debian than join it. :waves:
It's hard work enough leaving the mainstream to use Linux and other open source software without leaving the open source mainstream.
Far out.
For seekers only
Imagine other open-source apps doing this
From the Mozilla Trademark Policy:
Those taking full advantage of the open-source nature of Mozilla's products and making significant functional changes may not redistribute the fruits of their labor under any Mozilla trademark. For example, it would be inappropriate for them to say "based on Mozilla Firefox". Instead, in the interest of complete accuracy, they should describe their executables as "based on Mozilla technology", or "incorporating Mozilla source code." They should also change the name of the executable so as to reduce the chance that a user of the modified software will be misled into believing it to be a native Mozilla product.
There are two problems Debian has with Firefox. First, its logo isn't free software as defined by the Debian Free Software Guidelines. So, it's shipped with a modified logo. Mozilla doesn't approve. They say, ship it with the original logo, or don't call it Firefox. Apparently, that's a "serious modification."
Second, Mozilla demands that Debian submit any and all patches made to the source provided by Mozilla for prior approval. Apparently, Debian's patches amount to more "serious modifications" (at least in the eyes of the Mozilla people).
Now, imagine that every open-source app made the same demands. Want to call it The GIMP? Use our new copyrighted logo and pass your patches through us. How about OpenOffice.org? AbiWord? Pan? You can see how there'd be a real mess if everyone took the same attitude that Mozilla's taking.
I'm not saying Mozilla doesn't have the right to defend its trademarks. However, it does seem to be taking a line that is definitely not in the spirit of the open source community here.
--
><)))°> Debian/Kanotix: http://kanotix.com