Comments on: Great post on the Debian/Firefox spork http://snarkfest.net/blog/2006/10/29/great-post-on-the-debianfirefox-spork/ Fun and games with the politics of open source Tue, 28 Sep 2010 20:03:53 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: cost renters insurance http://snarkfest.net/blog/2006/10/29/great-post-on-the-debianfirefox-spork/comment-page-1/#comment-787 cost renters insurance Fri, 01 Jun 2007 15:23:04 +0000 http://steelgryphon.com/blog/?p=90#comment-787 Man, what a well set-up website! Man, what a well set-up website!

]]> By: Joshua Rodman http://snarkfest.net/blog/2006/10/29/great-post-on-the-debianfirefox-spork/comment-page-1/#comment-786 Joshua Rodman Thu, 07 Dec 2006 08:46:23 +0000 http://steelgryphon.com/blog/?p=90#comment-786 As always, it is not only your organization's refusal to allow derivative works of the logo which creates the problem (a point I do not agree is a trademark concern, but agree to disagree), but your unwillingness to allow Debian to discard the logo altogether and retain the name Firefox. So, no, Debian cannot satisfy your chosen set of needs except by changing the entire name, which is what they are doing. Hopefully you can stop posting this stuff at least until you change your position. As always, it is not only your organization’s refusal to allow derivative works of the logo which creates the problem (a point I do not agree is a trademark concern, but agree to disagree), but your unwillingness to allow Debian to discard the logo altogether and retain the name Firefox.

So, no, Debian cannot satisfy your chosen set of needs except by changing the entire name, which is what they are doing. Hopefully you can stop posting this stuff at least until you change your position.

]]> By: James http://snarkfest.net/blog/2006/10/29/great-post-on-the-debianfirefox-spork/comment-page-1/#comment-785 James Sun, 05 Nov 2006 16:26:33 +0000 http://steelgryphon.com/blog/?p=90#comment-785 Let's see what LICENSE has to say, right at the top: "You are not granted rights or licenses to the trademarks of the Mozilla Foundation or any party, including without limitation the Firefox name or logo." Nowhere in this discussion have I seen alternate terms for distribution of the logo discussed. So even ignoring its unmodifiability (to satisfy DFSG), there's no legal way for Debian to distribute the logo. Let’s see what LICENSE has to say, right at the top:

“You are not granted rights or licenses to the trademarks of the Mozilla Foundation or any party, including without limitation the Firefox name or logo.”

Nowhere in this discussion have I seen alternate terms for distribution of the logo discussed. So even ignoring its unmodifiability (to satisfy DFSG), there’s no legal way for Debian to distribute the logo.

]]> By: Mike http://snarkfest.net/blog/2006/10/29/great-post-on-the-debianfirefox-spork/comment-page-1/#comment-784 Mike Wed, 01 Nov 2006 18:12:52 +0000 http://steelgryphon.com/blog/?p=90#comment-784 There's legal differences in what you can do with copyright and trademark, however we basically use them in the same manner, and license them together in nearly all cases. Copyright law is easier to enforce for various reasons, so its a good tool, but in terms of the license terms I don't think that there are additional DFSG-compatible restrictions in our copyright license. No one has explained to me in clear terms why the icon is not covered under the name change section of the DFSG, since it is used in conjunction with the name of the browser only. Mark, I asked the same question in the bug, and got the same textbook answer, but not a reply to why our copyright license is incompatible with the aggressive trademark enforcement that _is_ ok under the DFSG. its not a new talking point, I just don't get it. There’s legal differences in what you can do with copyright and trademark, however we basically use them in the same manner, and license them together in nearly all cases. Copyright law is easier to enforce for various reasons, so its a good tool, but in terms of the license terms I don’t think that there are additional DFSG-compatible restrictions in our copyright license. No one has explained to me in clear terms why the icon is not covered under the name change section of the DFSG, since it is used in conjunction with the name of the browser only.

Mark, I asked the same question in the bug, and got the same textbook answer, but not a reply to why our copyright license is incompatible with the aggressive trademark enforcement that _is_ ok under the DFSG. its not a new talking point, I just don’t get it.

]]> By: Mark http://snarkfest.net/blog/2006/10/29/great-post-on-the-debianfirefox-spork/comment-page-1/#comment-783 Mark Tue, 31 Oct 2006 17:34:16 +0000 http://steelgryphon.com/blog/?p=90#comment-783 """The logo itself is no more encumbered than the trademark, and any lack of freedom for the icon is identical to the lack of free for the trademark.""" Lo! A new talking point from the ashes! (BTW, this is crap, but I'll leave it to a lawyer to explain why.) """Debian could simply specify alternate branding to comply with the DFSG, and still work with the rest of the mozilla.org community to maintain and improve the apps they’re shipping. I would personally be glad to work with them...""" You could start by correcting your post to acknowledge that that is exactly what Debian is doing, i.e. exactly what you demanded they do in your original bug report. “”"The logo itself is no more encumbered than the trademark, and any lack of freedom for the icon is identical to the lack of free for the trademark.”"”

Lo! A new talking point from the ashes! (BTW, this is crap, but I’ll leave it to a lawyer to explain why.)

“”"Debian could simply specify alternate branding to comply with the DFSG, and still work with the rest of the mozilla.org community to maintain and improve the apps they’re shipping. I would personally be glad to work with them…”"”

You could start by correcting your post to acknowledge that that is exactly what Debian is doing, i.e. exactly what you demanded they do in your original bug report.

]]> By: Baptiste http://snarkfest.net/blog/2006/10/29/great-post-on-the-debianfirefox-spork/comment-page-1/#comment-782 Baptiste Mon, 30 Oct 2006 21:08:15 +0000 http://steelgryphon.com/blog/?p=90#comment-782 "any lack of freedom for the icon is identical to the lack of free for the trademark" This is not true for the following reasons: 1) the fair use cases are different for copyright and trademark law (ex: trademark law allows parody) 2) trademark protection is limited to one economic sector 3) the penalties for copyright infringement are harsher that for trademark infringement. Also, if the copyright of the icon really made no difference, that would be one more reason to change it to a free software licence in the name of apeasement. That way, you could even have blessed the Debian build, as the only difference with the Ubuntu version is the icon :-> “any lack of freedom for the icon is identical to the lack of free for the trademark”

This is not true for the following reasons:

1) the fair use cases are different for copyright and trademark law (ex: trademark law allows parody)

2) trademark protection is limited to one economic sector

3) the penalties for copyright infringement are harsher that for trademark infringement.

Also, if the copyright of the icon really made no difference, that would be one more reason to change it to a free software licence in the name of apeasement.

That way, you could even have blessed the Debian build, as the only difference with the Ubuntu version is the icon :->

]]> By: sipaq http://snarkfest.net/blog/2006/10/29/great-post-on-the-debianfirefox-spork/comment-page-1/#comment-781 sipaq Mon, 30 Oct 2006 18:02:18 +0000 http://steelgryphon.com/blog/?p=90#comment-781 Glandium, Mike, as far as I recall, there's a middleground between a Firefox build with official branding and a build without the Firefox name and without the official branding artwork. Why don't you, Glandium, and MoCo get together to discuss a "Firefox Debian Community Edition" [1]. There you would have the Firefox name, without the official branding artwork and with the patchset that seems to be acceptable for Ubuntu and which therefore should also be acceptable for Debian. Then we could all live happily ever after. [1] http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/community-edition-policy.html Glandium, Mike,
as far as I recall, there’s a middleground between a Firefox build with official branding and a build without the Firefox name and without the official branding artwork.

Why don’t you, Glandium, and MoCo get together to discuss a “Firefox Debian Community Edition” [1]. There you would have the Firefox name, without the official branding artwork and with the patchset that seems to be acceptable for Ubuntu and which therefore should also be acceptable for Debian.

Then we could all live happily ever after.

[1] http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/community-edition-policy.html

]]> By: Jed http://snarkfest.net/blog/2006/10/29/great-post-on-the-debianfirefox-spork/comment-page-1/#comment-780 Jed Mon, 30 Oct 2006 16:59:00 +0000 http://steelgryphon.com/blog/?p=90#comment-780 glandium: I hope your comments here don't really represent Debian. You are not a nice person at all (atleast in writting, as I don't know you in the real world), and if your comments here reflect in any way how this "issue" has been handled, then I must say shame on you and shame on debian for giving you that kind of authority. glandium:
I hope your comments here don’t really represent Debian.

You are not a nice person at all (atleast in writting, as I don’t know you in the real world), and if your comments here reflect in any way how this “issue” has been handled, then I must say shame on you and shame on debian for giving you that kind of authority.

]]> By: Mike http://snarkfest.net/blog/2006/10/29/great-post-on-the-debianfirefox-spork/comment-page-1/#comment-779 Mike Mon, 30 Oct 2006 15:12:48 +0000 http://steelgryphon.com/blog/?p=90#comment-779 Where's the agreement? I haven't found one that was not a proposal. As for the "tell us if you don't like something we're doing" part, that really doesn't seem fair to Red Hat and Novell, both of whom have fulltime developers contributing to the product, yet they still have to get individual patches approved. I can't imagine the people who put that requirement on those two distros waiving it entirely for Debian or anyone else. If you want to claim 'we had an agreement' repeatedly, please show me the agreement, even in private mail. I don't know what the agreement is, and no one's given me a link or an email thread that shows who approved it and when. Where’s the agreement? I haven’t found one that was not a proposal.

As for the “tell us if you don’t like something we’re doing” part, that really doesn’t seem fair to Red Hat and Novell, both of whom have fulltime developers contributing to the product, yet they still have to get individual patches approved. I can’t imagine the people who put that requirement on those two distros waiving it entirely for Debian or anyone else.

If you want to claim ‘we had an agreement’ repeatedly, please show me the agreement, even in private mail. I don’t know what the agreement is, and no one’s given me a link or an email thread that shows who approved it and when.

]]> By: glandium http://snarkfest.net/blog/2006/10/29/great-post-on-the-debianfirefox-spork/comment-page-1/#comment-778 glandium Mon, 30 Oct 2006 07:12:24 +0000 http://steelgryphon.com/blog/?p=90#comment-778 Mike, I never heard your complains about Debian's Firefox being "significantly"(sic) different before you raised trademark issues, except a post from Benjamin Smedbergs, but that was about xulrunner, not firefox. The agreement we had with Gervase is that *you* would complain if our patches gave you problems. Again, we never heard about you until you came to tell we use the brand without a license. In the light of that kind of discussion, where you take back words that were given, how relevant do you thing a patchset could have been ? Moreover, you were already looking at it by yourself, saying "I'm not sure I'm comfortable with some of the changes shipping with official branding, but this isn't the right place to discuss that". (Well, it seems you finally were comfortable with them, since Ubuntu ships with them). Anyways, the patchset was not the point of the discussion, and even if you would have allowed us to use the trademark by agreing that the patchset wa okay, you were also asking us to ship with the official logo, which we can't do. And that was also part of the agreement: We could ship with the name, but with the unbranded logo. But let's just stop this discussion, it has last too long, and it's already over. I'd still like to hear what Christopher Beard has to say about the FUDing, though... (because that was not a random post off a Mozilla weblog, that was an official Q&A about Ubuntu and Mozilla's love affair, with spitting on Debian inside) Mike, I never heard your complains about Debian’s Firefox being
“significantly”(sic) different before you raised trademark issues, except a post from Benjamin Smedbergs, but that was about xulrunner, not firefox.
The agreement we had with Gervase is that *you* would complain if our patches gave you problems. Again, we never heard about you until you came to tell we use the brand without a license. In the light of that kind of discussion, where you take back words that were given, how relevant do you thing a patchset could have been ? Moreover, you were already looking at it by yourself, saying “I’m not
sure I’m comfortable with some of the changes shipping with official
branding, but this isn’t the right place to discuss that”. (Well, it seems you finally were comfortable with them, since Ubuntu ships with them).
Anyways, the patchset was not the point of the discussion, and even if you would have allowed us to use the trademark by agreing that the patchset wa okay, you were also asking us to ship with the official logo, which we can’t do. And that was also part of the agreement: We could ship with the name, but with the unbranded logo.
But let’s just stop this discussion, it has last too long, and it’s already over.
I’d still like to hear what Christopher Beard has to say about the FUDing, though… (because that was not a random post off a Mozilla weblog, that was an official Q&A about Ubuntu and Mozilla’s love affair, with spitting on Debian inside)

]]>