mozilla.org — "Our code is free, but we do strictly enforce our trademark rights, we must, in order to keep them valid." Everyone just take a deep breath and calm down. A Mozilla Foundation Rep. might have said something he wasn't legally supposed to, but this is hardly a scandal. Here is the Official Trademark FAQ for Mozilla.
Sep 26, 2006 View in Crawl 4
elusiveSep 26, 2006Submitter
You left out the important bits:"Because it would gain nothing, and lead to far more infringing uses of our marks. In practice, there is no use for the files except as expressions of our trademarks, so the rights associated with an open source license don't add anything."In other words, what is the point in releasing the logo files as free (non-copyrighted)? They are still trademarked so their use is still restricted in exactly the same manner.
heavensblade23Sep 27, 2006
Mozilla pretty much has to protect their trademarks to prevent someone from cashing in on Firefox' popularity by releasing a version with spyware or worse.
andersonmanlySep 27, 2006
That's right...if they didn't trademark their product, what's to stop Microsoft or Apple from snagging it and calling it their own?
toecheeseSep 27, 2006
@chrismm...Find me a trademark issue that Microsoft has fought and everyone bitched about. Remember that a Trademark is different than a Patent. Now if they went after someone because they had the word Windows in their title but they were not in the computer business then MS would be a dick. Even if MS suddenly got into the storm window business they don't have the right to it. Now if I released an application call MS Basic then I think Microsoft should have the right to defend their MS Basic trademark. Regardless of what my app does and even if they don't have that application available anymore because the moment they let someone slide on it their hold on the trademark has been weaken.What do you think Netscape (or AOL) would do if Adobe released a product called Navigator?
sciencedudeSep 27, 2006
diggaplease: "putting this page up was a good thing, so Mozilla at least deserves credit for that."They put this page up MANY months ago--back when they told many distros that using the name and not the coppywritten logo was O.K.:Here's the page history:<a class="user" href="http://bonsai-www.mozilla.org/cvslog.cgi?file=mozilla-org/html/foundation/trademarks/faq.html&rev=&root=/cvsroot/">http://bonsai-www.mozilla.org/cvslog.cgi?file=mozilla-org/html/foundation/trademarks/faq.html&rev=&root=/cvsroot/</a>
sciencedudeSep 27, 2006
But the whole issue is that they don't want to use the icon--the copyright isn't acceptable under DFSG.
akinderSep 27, 2006
You'll get modded into oblivion for that sort of truth talk around here.It's OK everyone, it's Mozilla, so it's not a scandal or anything to worry about! Then tomorrow, Microsoft does it and it's "OMG those bastards, evil corporate bastards!"
shadowmanSep 27, 2006
How is this a "scandal"? Talk about redefining a word for your own purposes. That's a scandal!
jaredvolklSep 27, 2006
@LowenSoDiumI don't think these distros actually change any of the code, just the graphics. I don't see how that could cause crashes or a virus to spread. If something like that did somehow make it into a release, the community would surely flush it out quickly. That's the benefit of community developed software.
trogdoorSep 27, 2006
"If Debian is so upset over their use or alleged misuse of a trademarked name/graphic..."Where is this idea that Debian or Mozilla are 'upset' coming from?They both have legitimate reasons why they are doing what they are doing, and they both realize that about the other. Nobody representing Mozilla or Debian has mentioned any anger, malice, or even disagreement.They have mutually exclusive problems, and they are trying to find a way to continue working together, nothing more.Please cite one ill willed reference from either party, I think you will find the 'argument' is contained entirely within Digg and other blogs that in no way represent either party.
jacobmp92Sep 27, 2006
Mozilla does NOT want both, they want neither, since the code is changed.
venom8599Sep 28, 2006
Debian also doesn't have to be so zealous in having everything be "free". The image is copyrighted. Mozilla wants the image to stay copyrighted, because if it were free, it has no control over who uses it at all and the logo could be attached to very substandard derivatives, to malware, etc... with impunity. This to me is an example of how people who get overly zealous about totally "free" software cause complications. In some situations, copyright isn't an evil thing, and is appropriate.
Closed AccountSep 28, 2006
thanks a lot to the f**ktards digging me down. Boo hoo.My point was they should be enforcing trademark issues against those who actually stand to hurt firefox, not help them.
heathenxSep 28, 2006
@trogdooryup, i totally agree with you. the only people upset over it are diggers. are people here cherry picking the facts and then choosing sides?personally, i would like the firefox and thunderbird icons used on debian/ubuntu but if debian/ubuntu refuse for legitimate reasons then no worries. lighten up people.
subgeniusdSep 28, 2006
"Sorry, but we have run into some technical difficulties!The Opera Community will be back up as soon as possible. Until then, you may visit the following pages:"-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------And this is 4 hours after link posted.I'm on Debian right now and still think they are overreacting. But they have a right to overreact and if I don't like it I am entitled to a full refund (haha)