Mozilla and Ubuntu

As is already being reported, Ubuntu will shortly release Ubuntu 6.10 ("Edgy Eft") and it will include Mozilla Firefox 2.  Matt Zimmerman from Ubuntu has announced this on the ubuntu-devel mailing list, and anyone following their release process will have noticed this already too.  As you may know, Mozilla's relationship with the Debian project has been an issue lately, and I'm sure that this announcement raises some more questions given that Ubuntu is based upon Debian. And so we've put together the following Q&A. Please do let me know should you have any other questions.

---

Q&A ON MOZILLA FIREFOX IN UBUNTU

Will Ubuntu be shipping Firefox?
Yes. Ubuntu 6.10 will include Firefox 2, just released this week by Mozilla.

Is it a full and official Mozilla Firefox release?
Yes. Ubuntu will be shipping an official and supported version of Firefox to be fully branded as "Mozilla Firefox 2".

Is this the first Linux distribution to ship Mozilla Firefox?
Ubuntu will be the first Linux distribution to ship with Firefox 2.  Red Hat, Novell and other distros have been working with Mozilla and currently ship an official and supported version of Firefox 1.5. We expect that they will update to Firefox 2 in due course.

I understand that Ubuntu is based upon Debian. Is that the same or different than the IceWeasel browser that Debian is shipping with their latest release?
It's different. The patches that Debian applied to the Mozilla source code (which then resulted in their IceWeasel product) are more significant in scope than those in what Ubuntu is shipping (and branding as an official Mozilla Firefox release). Firefox in Ubuntu represents a somewhat more modest set of divergences from original Mozilla source code.

What's different in the shipping Ubuntu version of Firefox than the proposed Debian version of Firefox (that didn't ultimately ship)?
Technically, changes include fixes to the User Agent string and the feed preview, a well as addressing issues of coherent branding. More significant than any specific difference in code, however, is Ubuntu's commitment to work together with Mozilla and our community on releases going forward to insure product quality and integrity.

Why are you working with Ubuntu when you wouldn't work with Debian?
We did try to work with Debian and would prefer a situation in which we work together. Ultimately, Debian took a position that was consistent with their own policies, and not compatible with some of the exceptions to Mozilla trademark policies that we offered. While we understand and respect their decision not to work with us under our branding guidelines, Mozilla believes that brands like Firefox are important for consumer protection. In any event, Ubuntu developers are working closely with Mozilla developers to insure product quality and features that are what users expect when they use Mozilla Firefox, which means that they'll ship (and will continue to ship) a fully branded version.

Should we expect different versions of browsers in Ubuntu and Debian in the future?
We don't know. This is within the purview of both Ubuntu and Debian. We have every intention of working with Ubuntu for the foreseeable future to deliver Mozilla Firefox in same manner as we do with other Linux distros such as Red Hat and Novell.

Does the same logic apply to Thunderbird and IceDove?
Yes.

Comments

[Dan]

Thanks for the info. I guess my question (perhaps it's more directed at Ubuntu) is why ship an altered version of Firefox at all? Do the changes that Ubuntu have made not need to be pushed upstream? Where can I find detailed information on the differences?

[Foo]

Debian applies security patches as Mozilla is to slow.

[Moritz]

Does anybody from the Ubuntu Project said why they ship non-free logos? Or do they just not care?

Cheers,
Moritz

[Rob...]

This is good news.

The most important question though is whether Ubuntu's Firefox compatible with ColorZilla...

[tux]

>While we understand and respect their decision not to work with us under our branding guidelines, Mozilla believes that brands like Firefox are important for consumer protection.

Really, consumer protection, eh? Sounds to me more like protecting the interests of the Mozilla corporation...

[Diego]

What I find funny is how hipocrits are the Debian folks - Debian and its logo is ALSO a registered trademark and they don't allow other people using it freely, still Mozilla is the "evil guys"...

[Ted Mielczarek]

tux:
If you were paying attention, you'd know that the sole shareholder of the Mozilla Corporation is the non-profit Mozilla Foundation, and "The mission of the Mozilla project is to preserve choice and innovation on the Internet."

What other interests do you think the Mozilla Corporation has? It's not publicly traded and never will be. It has only one shareholder. Please, the anti-corporation rants just embarrass you. A corporation in this case is just a useful legal fiction.

[ahci.c]

Moritz

Debian ships non-free logos too. You can't use Debian logo and name for any purpose. All distros trademarked their logos and names. Hell, Linux is also trademarket.

This is trademarking, not software development. You can't allow everyone to use your name for whatever they want. If they do bad things, you will be the guilty one, not them.

[Jussi Kukkonen]

Diego, ahci.c:

Debian logo situation is considered a bug in debian and last I heard it is finally in the process of being solved (Branden Robinson's working on it IIRC).

Also, comparing Mozilla trademark policy to Linux trademark policy is silly, as they are so obviously different: anyone can put out a modified kernel and still call it linux, no one is going to complain. I don't think Debian would have a problem if Mozilla operated like that...

[Asa Dotzler]

Jussi, the Debian logo situation may be labeled a "bug" by some at Debian, but it's real-world implications today are similar to Mozilla's. Until that "bug" is "fixed", that response is nothing more than dodge.

As far as trademarks and the linux kernel, you have to learn a bit about trademarks to see why they're different. Trademarks are all about avoiding consumer confusion. Consumers of the linux kernel (people who actually know what a kernel is) are not likely to be confused by a modified kernel -- even if it's still called a linux kernel. That's the nature of those consumers (mostly professional software developers working on building various linux operating systems or distributions.) It's not the same with end-user desktop applications like Firefox. An "average" browser user is much more likely to be confused when confronted with two very different applications both called Firefox. It's that customer confusion that trademark law cares about -- and that Mozilla cares about.

Foo, Debian applies security patches that are produced, tested, and almost universally applied and distributed by Mozilla well before Debian gets them. Debian also fails to apply security patches that Mozilla considers critical to protecting users because Debian is unwilling to upgrade users to newer versions with fundamental security architecture improvements. The bottom line here is that users of Debian's Firefox are significantly less safe than users of Mozilla's latest Firefox release. It may not entirely be Debian's fault. It could be that integrating Firefox into a larger whole just makes it that much more difficult for them to protect their users in the same timely way that Mozilla does. Regardless of the reason, though, no one protects Firefox users from security and privacy issues as quickly and as fully as Mozilla.

Dan, we're working with Ubuntu to get the changes they're making reviewed and included in Mozilla's repository so that all linux distributions who pull our sources will benefit. This is similar to how we've been working with Red Hat and Novell for years. It's this kind of relationship that some Debian developers consider outrageous and unacceptable to the Debian project. I personally think that's a shame. The good news is that we do have much improved relations with Ubuntu and that brings us a lot closer to where we would like to be -- working with all of the major Linux distributions to ensure that users get the best possible experience with Firefox.

tux, you're almost right (accidentally, I'm sure.) This is definitely about making sure that consumers aren't confused. It is also, as you said, about the interests of the Mozilla Corporation. The Mozilla Corporation is very much interested in giving users the best possible Firefox experience :-)

- A

[jldugger]

How important is it that the Debian logo is non-free if they've never pursued valid case of misuse (http://www.found.ksu.edu/)?

Several OSS trademarks exist; there's only two I know about that are quite extreme: Debian's logo and Mozilla. Given that Mozilla's policy looks like it was inspired by Debian, I find it highly ironic that they're being bitten now.

[Brian P.]

I just installed U6.10 and found that the quick launch icon is the Firefox icon and the about dialog uses the official artwork. But the program icon (the icon in the top left corner of all of the windows and dialogs) is the unofficial globe icon.

Oops?

[Nick Hanson]

Asa, while I agree the Debian trademark "bug" is a dodge your "nature of consumers" kernel claim is equally so. They ARE the same thing.

As for the security patches I'm not aware of any Mozilla security patch that Debian has refused to apply. It might take a little longer to get packaged but they aren't rejecting them. Furthermore they are providing patches to older versions of the browser that Mozilla no longer supports. The fact that they don't FORCE their users to upgrade to the latest version and instead give them a CHOICE to do is is NOT a security weakness as you are trying to imply. It's and example of the software freedom that free software is SUPPOSED to be all about. If those users CHOOSE to get the newer version they can do so from testing, unstable, experimental or even directly.

[Jon Severinsson]

jldugger: That is becouse Debian is breaking the --enable-official-branding swich to configure. By default you won't get any mozilla branding at all, but debians buggy patchset won't work unless you enable offical branding.
The obvious solution would be to fix their patches so they work without branding. However, debian are instead using --enable-official-branding and then try to patch away the branding they enabled. Unfortunately those patches is about as broken as the first lot, so they miss most of it.

If the rest of their patches is as buggy as the branding related once I'm not surprised if Mozilla (Corporation or Foundation) don't wan't to be associated with it...

[glandium]

Jon: no, we're not using --enable-official-branding. See http://web.glandium.org/blog/?p=97

And since I fail to send a talkback:
http://web.glandium.org/blog/?p=99

Please comment there.

[glandium]

Brian P.: That's probably this bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=314927

for which they didn't apply the patch Debian applies.

[Jon]

You did a good job of not making this whole issue with Debian not sound like a holy war. Thank you: it really shouldn't.

[anonym]

i'd be interested if the mozilla guys have one single linux desktop at their office?

1. their tradmark handling is _disgusting_
i regret any time spent on Mozilla
2. any open source project publishes security patches
it is really sad that an old posterboy is not able to fullfill this basic qa task.
3. no respect to localization.
teams get almost no notification nor mention.

[Ron]

Here's what I think someone should do: create a new distro based on Debian, make various "improvements" that make it incompatible and inferior to Debian, and then release it using the full branding of Debian including their name and logo. Extra points for distributing it from a web site that also uses full Debian branding.

I wonder how many *seconds* it would take Debian to throw a screaming fit?

[berylm]

The purpose of Debian patches is to keep my *whole* system stable and secure. I'd rather trust Debian to do that than Mozilla.

Debian does allow (and even provides) a version of its artwork for your mutant version. Mozilla does not do this. Case closed.

[Nico Dietrich]

Hm.. Reading those comments (especially the previous, stuipid, aggressive comment by Ron) made me quite sad! Unfortunately a lot of people are fast at shouting stupid and ugly things, but unable to read what it's really about!

Mike Hommey from Debian explained the whole thing and showed that those accusations towards Debian are simply wrong:

Please read his blog entry before posting shit:
http://web.glandium.org/blog/?p=99

And it also sad not a single Mozilla Developer answered his last blog entry:
http://web.glandium.org/blog/?p=97

Mozillians - please comment that!

In this current situation, I'm glad to be able to switch to Iceweasel soon!

[Ron]

Nico: I don't think my comment was particularly aggressive, just making a point. Which is: Debian would be (justifiably, but hypocritically) upset if someone put out an inferior product and used the Debian branding. Why? Because it would cause confusion and negatively affect their reputation.

What if you had a product that had earned a top-notch reputation because of the blood, sweat, and tears you spent to make it the best you could and then someone released a shoddy version using your "official" branding? You would: 1) not be happy that someone was negatively affecting your reputation, and 2) would act to protect your trademarks and branding (this is, of course, assuming you're the sort of person who plays with a full deck).

Also, a handy tip (for free!): proper grammar, spelling, and not resorting to cursing will help readers take your posts seriously. I find it slightly ironic that you misspelled "stupid".

[Marco]

Ron, "inferior product" ? "a shoddy version" ? What's wrong with you, have you at least tried it so that you can really prove that it's such an inferior release ? And on top, "negatively affecting your reputation", as if anything about Firefox® could be affected by some Linux user.

[rofflecake]

lmao @ dis thread

[Paul]

Having read Mike Hommey's blog post it seems some of the characterisations ("Firefox in Ubuntu represents a somewhat more modest set of divergences from original Mozilla source code") seem false.

Maybe the issue is not that Debian's browser is (at this point in time) more divergent but that they haven't committed to a process through which they maintain a level of commonality that is acceptable to Mozilla.

Personally I think this whole thing has been unnecessarily unseemly. People on both sides seem too keen to put the other side in a poor light. Perhaps everyone should just realise that the other side is perfectly entitled to do what they have done and STFU about it for a while.