What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How to Make Your PC as Fast as the Day You Bought It view!
howlifeworks.com - What's the fastest way to restore a computer to its original blazing glory
119 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+49
I use a Debian- based distro...Will I stop using Firefox because of this?
Nope.
It's a shame this has happened, however. - BluParadox, on 10/12/2007, -3/+39"And it suffers from being under the heavy-handed jurisdiction of the Mozilla Foundation, which is enforcing its trademark rights in an oppressive way (the fact that it's legal doesn't make it right; they could simply open source the icon. That's all it would take---open source the Firefox /icon!/)."
What you dont seem to understand is that the way US law is written the Mozilla Foundation is required to defend it's trademark or forfit it completely. This is something they are legally required to do. - actionscripted, on 10/12/2007, -9/+42Losing support for your FOSS product from some of the most hardcore FOSS supporters is a huge deal.
If you think losing Linux share isn't a big deal just because there aren't many Linux users -- you're sorely mistaken. - Mejogid, on 10/12/2007, -7/+36The worst case scenario is not that Debian based distros cannot include firefox, but (unless they use the unaltered source) cannot use official Firefox branding. To me that seems like Mozilla cutting off its nose to spite its face - if a user likes using 'Ubuntu Browser', Mozilla won't be getting any credit for their huge work on the project and users may not even use it on Windows.
They have never been able to use the logo because Mozilla considers it trademark infringement, but now they won't be able to use the name without the logo. Using unaltered source is unnaceptable for many distros, since it will conflict with the update manager. It also means that when Mozilla stops releasing security updates for 1.5.*, Ubuntu cannot support it in 6.06 LTS for the next five years, as they will with all other software.
It also means that distro developers will have to commit changes upstream before including them, which effectively doubles the time it takes for distro specific fixes to actually happen. It also means that a distro can't include a hackish fix to get it working specifically on their distro.
Although I can understand Mozilla's desire to protect their trade mark, I think they should start a liscencing programme or something similar to authorise third party versions of the browser. Alternatively, we'll have to fork it, create another brand or develop epiphany, which I think could be easily the best Linux browser with a little work. - BTrey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+25In addition to the issues with protecting or losing a copyright, why is Firefox being "silly" by wanting to control their name? What happens if Debian patches the source and introduces a bug that someone uses to steal my banking password and clean out my account? As far as I'm concerned, I got ripped off because of a bug in Firefox, and I'm going to tell everyone I know what a crappy browser Firefox is. If you want to call your browser "Firefox," then the people at Firefox have everyright to demand that you let them know in advance what product you're putting out under their brand name. I use Debain but they're in the wrong on this one. Either allow Firefox to approve the changes they want to make or don't use the name.
- Topslakr, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23The Trademark has to be enforced or it's lost. It's the same as with Apple and things with the word pod in it. Use it or loose it. Kleenex is a BRAND of tissue but so many people use it as a synonym for tissue that they are always teetering on the edge of loosing. Mozilla needs to keep it. Plain and simple. I shall carry using Firefox as usual.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21Firefox needs to (and should) defend it's trademarks
Debian (and Ubuntu) needs to (and should) stick to it's social contracts
So this is a non-trivial debate. I personally see changing the name as a bad idea, users will be confused, and dependancies will get icky with stupid dummy packages...
Debian should just move FireFox to non-free (or contrib?) and likewise for Ubuntu (restricted/universe). Honestly, who doesn't add those to thier sources.list anyways? Ubuntu already includes stuff from restricted by default anyhow... - Virak, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19Epiphany isn't that much faster (I've tried it), and it has three big things against it:
1. It takes the Gnome philosophy of simplifying things to painful levels (seriously, look at the 'Preferences' some time)
2. It uses Gnome's ridiculously stupid 'hide them even when there's plenty of space for more' tabbing behavior
3. No Firefox extensions. This is a big one, and it's the reason a lot of people (including myself) are using Firefox over something else; nothing else allows the same level of customization, and nothing else offers the same amount of extensions. - mikeoh, on 10/12/2007, -5/+21Geez, its not that big of a deal. Just change the name and be done with it...
I think Mozilla are worried about getting complaints from user's because of errors caused by unoffical patches.
Its still a great browser, if the name is different. - MonkeyLord, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19I agree with ksgant... it really is a non-issue for the end user. I understand about protecting ip and all... but this is just a bit on the silly side for both parties involved.
- mindwarp, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17The digg summary is incorrect. Every patch ubuntu and debian make for firefox is public, and access is not restricted. The issue is that we can not use the firefox name without using the logo, but the logo has trademark restrictions which prohibit us from distributing it since it does not meet our free guidelines.
- wesmoc, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15Yeah.. tell me about it.
In looking at what Debian did, though, it is pretty stupid. I mean, the source code for FireFox has a "branded" and "non-branded" switch. "branded" makes the browser called "FireFox" and includes all of the icons and other crap. "unbranded" makes the browser called "Whatever you want it called" with all of the freeware (aka: generic) icons. Now, someone with their head in the sand decided "Well, I don't want the icons that go along with the Firefox name, so I am going to munge the code to make it work out so I can have a "FireFox" branded app with the freeware icons." Um, that's plain stupid since, from the get-go, since it is obvious that the goal was to hack around the code entirely. As a developer, that should raise a couple of alarms like "Is this really a good idea?"
Yes, Mozilla is obligated to enforce their trademark or otherwise lose it. No, they (nor would any other company) really go after the little guy, but this is DEBIAN, with a huge user base. Ubuntu is the same way (popular, lots of users).
Now, think of it this way: You've got the "Quality feedback agent" which sends crash information back to Mozilla. How in the world, from a developer's point of view, do you debug an issue with the code if the code was modified by someone else out there, but branded as your software? I mean, really.. talk about a management nightmare.
I personally don't think Mozilla is being stupid or anal here, as others have suggested. Read the whole slew of stuff going back and forth in the debian bug (#354622). The real stupid thing is that it has turned in to a pissing match. If the Debian and Mozilla folks would get their heads out of their rears and put their enormous egos aside, this could easily be solved. - pyrates, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Idiots I say. A trademark HAS to be defended. Otherwise you lose the trademark.
Debian can use the non-branded version of firefox and name it their own using their own icons for it. They can apply their own patches for it. Thus they can use it.
However they seem to want to apply their own patches for it AND use the branding in it. This is not responsible. What if one of their patches causes a bug and someone reports it to the firefox bugzilla. How can they possibly test it?
All this will do is add confusion and vastly different versions of firefox floating around. You will have the version of firefox from mozilla. You will have version a from debian. Version b from ubuntu. Version c from somewhere.
So how are you to tell the customer which version they are using if they keep them using all the same name and same icons? You can't. Atleast not very easily. What is so hard about using a different unique name and different icons? If the arguement is to tell the windows user, who is new to linux, that they can use the same browser firefox on either OS, then keep the source the same as when you get it from mozilla.
Don't apply patches to it to make it work with your version of linux. Instead submit the patch to mozilla so that they can integrate it into the official build and make it better for everybody instead of just for your version of linux. But if the bug only occurs with your version of linux, then that tells me you got issues with compatability on your version of linux and that those should be fixed instead of patching an application that will make it only work with your version of linux and cause a bug in every other version of linux. Fix the source of the problem in the OS instead of in the applications. - sciencedude, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15Your comment is incorrect. The firefox name is trademarked (just as the logo is). Debian doesn't care about trademarks. They care about copyright. The problem is that the logo has COPYRIGHT restrictions which run contrary to the DFSG.
- dukeinlondon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15Ditch the icon, rename the opensource part of firefox iceweasel and get on with it.
Thing is, we need Firefox, for things like the google apps, and other web niceties. Linux browser plugins are for firefox, a lot of effort has been put into it..... - unclefrank, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12So Mozilla company should bend their rules but debian shouldn't bend theirs because Debian's is a social contract? I'm not saying I agree or disagree with your statement I'm just making sure I have it correct.
I imagine that it might become a problem for Mozilla if every distro continues to name a program Mozilla but then makes changes to the code base. Wouldn't this be a nightmare to try and debug bugs that didn't exist? How would you know if a bug was in your code base or in one of the additions of changes made by the distrobution?
Isn't all MozCo saying is, "Either use our Icons, Name, Codebase or Do whatever you watn to it but please don't call it Mozilla" - drakethegreat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12They already did this... The big deal is not the icon but the fact that they have to use official patches to use the name. They've been using a custom icon with modified code to integrate better with apt-get.
- dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -10/+21People don't understand how this ***** works. Digg is having the same issues with their trademarks. If you don't protect your identity (both personally and professionally), people, you can't claim it when you take someone to court for stealing it. How well you protect your company's intellectual assets absolutely reflect exactly how much legal ground you stand on whenever you go to fight someone for it.
But I suppose I should expect Linux users, in all their wisdom, to be so childish and catty. - dtfinch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10They just don't want to open the door to derivatives that are substantially different from Firefox still being called Firefox.
Already they get a lot of bug reports for things that work in the official distribution, bugs caused by unapproved third party patches. Ubuntu's Firefox, for example, which is based on Debian's, used to be slower than mud, and it's still a lot slower than the official builds. It's almost a new browser. Some features are broken in the debian/ubuntu builds, such as automatic plugin installation, which works in the official Firefox builds for Linux, and some websites have problems in their patched builds but work in the official. - evilTak, on 10/12/2007, -7/+16If some nerdy guy hadn't "put his ideals before pragmatism," there would be no GNU/Linux, desktop or otherwise. How unfortunate for your daily newbies that you're their authoritative source.
- yoda133113, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Well I can definately see Mozilla's point, if Debian, etc. changes the code, then it is no longer Firefox, but if they still call it Firefox, then anything that has been changed is going to get attributed to Mozilla b y association, anything both good and bad, thus if the changes introduce some insane BUG OF DOOM (jk) Mozilla gets blames also. Mozilla just wants to cover their arse, if they can approve of the changes, then they can tellif there are bugs or not, etc.
- jk3us, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9It would be harmful to Mozilla if Debian included a patch that opened up a huge security vulnerability that allowed attackers to steal thousands of people's identities and credit card numbers. This could happen intentionally or unintentionally and might make people think that Firefox itself is at fault. On the other hand, it seems that when that happens and saying that Debian's in-house version of Firefox has the vulnerability would not be confusing at all.
- AlphaMack, on 09/26/2008, -6/+14While Epiphany is a nice browser, FF's appeal comes from the fact that it is cross-platform and will more or less behave the same way with the (almost) same look and feel across Linux, Windows, and Mac OS X.
If Mozilla wants to be uptight about brand recognition, why not simply release a free icon for the distros who modify the source to use... - Eccohawk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9All it takes is for Mozilla not to defend the trademark once, just once, and then they can lose rights to it forever. It sets a precedent, which can later be used in court to counteract any future lawsuits that might come into play over the trademark. Sure, the use this time around might be completely innocent and not a threat, but that may not always be the case. For example, if they let this go unattested, later on down the line, someone else could suddenly come up with a Firefox OS, or Firefox instant messenger, or even a more liabelous Firefox branded product, and Mozilla would not only have no say over its use for those products, but also no legal means to sue these upstarts over it any longer, because they've let it go in the past. This is entirely, without a doubt, nothing more than a straight up CYA move.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10...and Debian's default browser is already Epiphany. Not much would really change
- DnasTheGreat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"but some nerdy guy out there puts his ideals before pragmatism?"
Or some nerdy guy doesn't want to be sued because of some country's messed up patent laws. - rodrigo74, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14The number of Ubuntu+Firefox users might be low when compared to Win+Firefox and Mac+Firefox users, but one should also remember that many of those users are so-called "opinion makers", since they are the ones that recommend moms and pops which browser to use, besides being the people that might actually contribute actively to FF, or at least make a lot of noise.
Mozilla should follow Google and "make no evil". - Apreche, on 10/12/2007, -11/+18Maybe Ubuntu and Debian should just use the freaking icon. Look at Ubuntu, look how awesome desktop Linux is. Now think about how awesome it could be if they put in the stuff that isn't 100% free. I don't mean that they should put in stuff that would be illegal, like the nvidia driver. But including the Firefox icon and using the official build of Firefox is perfectly fine.
I talk to newbie Linux users every day. Do you know how hard it is to tell them that their lives could be easier, but some nerdy guy out there puts his ideals before pragmatism? If you constantly demand that everything be 100% free, there is a point at which you actually limit your freedom in the name of freedom. This is not good. Use the freaking icon. - unclefrank, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Is it not true that if you do not defend your trademarks you lose them? Perhaps Mozilla is simply doing what they have to. Either way this all seems silly over a bunch of icons and some text.
- rafgar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8A sizeable market share.
- rpdillon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Agree that it is stupid. Though I wouldn't mind Debian running all the patches by Mozilla - I use Kubuntu on AMD64 at home, and Firefox has a bug that prevents sites liek Digg from working properly (it's the javascrip library that does the comment hiding/showing slide effect). The bug has been in Launchpad for a LONG time, and no one has fixed it. The sad part is that it is Debian specific. I downloaded Mozilla source and Debian source and tried to build each, but got bogged down in the hellish Mozilla build process before I could get very far investigating the problem.
Anyway, I've been using Konqueror, which, except for the lack of extensions, is completely awesome and quite a bit faster than Firefox. - wireframe, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10The solution is simple. Remove firefox branding.
Follow Microsoft naming conventions for Vista (WIndows Mail, Windows Contacts, etc).....Firefox becomes "Debian Web Browser" or "Ubuntu Web Browser".
People are totally overreacting to this. It's great that Mozilla even GIVES these groups a choice! - neko, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13I can't stop using Firefox- I'm addicted now. Epiphany is OK but I don't use it often.
This whole thing is silly. Debian and MozillaCo are both being anal about this name/trademark thing.
One one hand, we've got Debian saying "We can't include your icons, because they're copyrighted and not free to distribute", on the other, we've got Moz saying "If you call it Firefox, you've gotta use the icon, and run every patch past us". It's stupid.
Debian could get around this by repackaging and un-branding Firefox, and calling it something else (IceWeasel?), because it's open source after all, but Moz is being anal about the trademark on that name. Wouldn't it be -harmful- to Firefox's image if all Debian derivatives started shipping with a cool, powerful, safe browser with a dumbass name like IceWeasel? - macewan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5before you go bashing the Mozilla Foundation keep in mind that they are doing the things that are required of them. they can't just skip certain rules because they like the Debian guys.
just like everything in life - you deal with it and move on - Jimtac, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6It's most likely simply the same thing that Digg was going through a short time ago with having to issue C&D letters. If you don't make reasonable attempts to protect your trademark, you lose it. The US PTO, as flawed as many of it's patent grants may be sometimes, got it right with that bit of trademark legislation. Use it (and protect it), or lose it, pretty simple really, that way businesses that go under don't keep a trademark in perpetuity.
- joel8x, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Marked as Lame - people need to stop acting like companies that protect their copyrights are evil - They HAVE to. If they do not, then they can lose it. Don't blame the company, blame the copyright system.
- Mejogid, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Not just to integrate better - without it, two update systems think they own the same files and can completely brake Firefox pretty easily. It's not so much an improvement as a requirement.
- guigouz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Mozilla's only telling that, if you make changes to the source, you can't call it firefox. Otherwise anyone could create a worse browser and call it firefox.
It's well explained on the debian forums, don't know why people are making such a huge histeria about it.
From
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=354622
----
The key problem is that there is code, and a build switch, that
explicitly handles the official branding/logos vs. the generic
name/artwork, and the package maintainer has chosen to break this switch
by making the unofficial side of the switch also label itself as
Firefox.
---- - drakethegreat, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Now just imagine the conflicts when other commercial companies get more involved with distributing their software on Linux. This is at least open source with no GPL but now its easy to see the the road to linux adoption may be bumpier then people thought.
- DesScorp, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8I promise you that more people will drop Debian than Firefox over this. The Debian people (and I'm a longtime Debian user) are simply being stupid about this. Most people hate this "purer than thou" crap.
- muramasa, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Actually, we don't need firefox at all. The plugins will work any browser, because they follow the NPAPI. Gecko is the important part; Firefox is replacable.
- Guspaz, on 10/12/2007, -10/+13I fully agree with you on this! However, I take it to a greater extent. There are a great many areas where Linux has this problem. One of my big contentions is out-of-box MP3 support. As I understand it, a distribution could get a free license for decoding if they agreed to the license, but they won't for idealistic reasons. Which just bugs me. Grandma wants the computer to play MP3s out of the box like Windows does, and the Linux based stuff doesn't.
IIRC, the free version of Lindows does support a bunch of non-free stuff such as MP3 while still remaining free as in cost. Why can't more distributions take this lead? GPL'd opensource software and non-free proprietary technology CAN co-exist, it's just ideological ***** from zealots that is getting in the way of user experience.
Sorry if this turned into a bit of a rant, but I feel rather strongly on the subject. - Popdmb, on 10/12/2007, -20/+23Now that Debian is not allowed to use the Firefox name without showing every patch to Mozilla, people are boycotting Firefox."
I'm sure the guys at Mozilla are pretty nervous. Since Linux has such a huge percent of the market, they're in a ton of trouble
/sarcasm
(This isnt an anti-Linux rant. I think it's great. But can we cut the overdramatic fanboydom out of the description?) - dfltr, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6it's been said before in comments above mine, but i just had to add my .02:
are people honestly talking about boycotting the best FOSS browser out there because their logo is copyrighted? free software is great, but seriously, it's not all or nothing. holding unwaveringly to an ideal gets you hero points, but implementing it as best you can while taking the best realistic course of action actually gets things done. - Shananra, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4sciencedude, You, sir, are naive. Branding itself has little to do with why Mozilla doesn't want the name or logo used in a third party version of the program. The issue is that if the program is called firefox, and/or uses the same logo, people will try to submit bugs to Mozilla that don't exist in the official version (with no way of knowing that their version differs from the real thing)
Keep in mind that there is a switch in the code that will let you turn branding on or off at your whim, for this reason. It is completely permissible to change anything you choose and release it, you just can't call your custom version Firefox or use the brand name so as not to create headaches for Mozilla.
In this case, I'm on Mozilla's side, though admittedly, I may not be if what was suggested by a number of people here was in fact the case. (i.e. making the brand name more permissive would completely defeat the purpose) - mortis42, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I agree 100% with pyrates.
On my Ubuntu box, one of the first things I did after the initial install is to go to the official Mozilla site and download and install Firefox from them and replace that version as my default. This way, I get security patches and other updates right away, and don't have to wait for them to be available in the Ubuntu repository. I also don't need to worry what kind of distro specific changes there might be when I go to configure Firefox to my preferences. - darthbator, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I don't really see the big issue here. GNU Linux (Debian, Ubuntu etc) will always be able to use and distribute firefox the only issue here is that they are using the name and not the icon (The debian FF logo is lame anyways =P). Debian could distribute fire fox as "Debian Web Browser" with their own branding if they wanted to, why not just do that and create yet another fork =P
If you're using linux and you want to use gecko you're better off with swiftfox IMO anyways :) I'm not necassarily opposed to mozilla defending their trademark, it's their branding to defend. - revellion, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Finally an insightful reply to the whole deal.
If you wouldn't have cleared it up i would've done so in perhaps a simpler way but still having the same meaning.
Digg the parent post up. - sciencedude, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Mozilla can set the rules for how their trademark is used. They could (and did in the past) decouple the use of the trademark name from the logo. There is no law which states that a trademark name can only be used with a particular image--this is just MozCo policy.
MozCo can also apply a more permissive copyright license to the logo.
MozCo COULD bend on this issue, but they choose not to.
Expecting Debian to bend is silly--they're social contract with their users is one of the core parts of their distribution (love it or hate it). MozCo isn't standing firm for the direct benefit of their users. Debian is.
I don't use Debian (I rarely use Ubuntu & knoppix, but it is a Gentoo/Suse/FreeBSD shop here). Yet my opinion of MozCo has dropped quite a bit because of this. - rafgar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4How about we stop blowing this out of proportion, OK? Mozilla's being a little over zealous in protecting thier trademarks, but doesn't exactly warrant 'Is Mozilla going to turn into Microsoft?' That's just ludicrous.
It's sad, but so what? I'm not likely to stop using Firefox unless I'm unable to get 2.0 through apt-get, and that's a little ways down the road. Even then, I'll probably keep using 1.5 till I find another browser I like.
That said, those of you who are poo-pooing a Debian boycott of Firefox should realize something. If Debian stops including Firefox in their archives, several other distros (including your much touted Ubuntu) won't likely be far behind. That's a huge chunk of the Linux market. And that doesn't even take into account the fact that such statements indicate a massive under estimation of the size of the Debian user base. Debian is, and was before Ubuntu was even thought of, up there with Fedora Core and SUSE as far as user base goes. Debian users just tend to be a little more technical and a little less patient with newbies. -
Show 51 - 100 of 119 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is