Recently there have been a number of discussion group postings, etc., about disagreements between Mozilla and Debian over the issue of the Firefox trademark and how it can be used. I wanted to address the issues that people have raised, and explain why we've taken the approach we have.
First, let’s state the topic clearly. The question is: how much can Debian, or anyone else, change Firefox and still call it Firefox? The question is not how much Debian or anyone else can change the application – Debian and others can modify, delete and add features as they choose. The question is whether that different program can be distributed as “Firefox.”
Our approach to answering this question is based on several factors. One is empowering community and distribution activities. Another is having the Firefox name and logos be reliable indicators of what the program is and does for you, regardless of where you obtained it. Another is being able to stop bad actors who use the Firefox name for their own malicious purposes.
Our balance has been to allow a small set of changes to Firefox, particularly in the areas of packaging and default settings. For example, Linux distributions in particular have a set of requirements in order for them to properly integrate software like Firefox into their distributions and therefore need to make a fair number of changes to the underlying source code. In practice, we generally approve those changes to Firefox that are minimally required to support the operating environment and that do not change the user experience, security and/or Web compatibility profile. We have been actively working to ensure that all licensed and authorized derivations bearing the Firefox name and logo maintain these characteristics. We presently have working relationships with most of the major Linux distributions, including Red Hat, Novell, and Ubuntu.
We do not allow the use of the Firefox names and logos with different product features, functions, or with different security patches. We do this so that everyone – both the people using Firefox and the community creating, updating and supporting Firefox – know what people get when they install “Firefox.” We also do this so that the ongoing development and testing process work for all Firefox distributions; this is not possible if different distributions have significantly different code. We also blanace community interests through a wide range of ways to express support for Firefox.
We share a lot in common with in how Debian currently manages their own reputation through trademark law, and we recognize the Debian concern that neither party's current approach is completely compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
So we regret that it appears Debian won't be shipping something called "Firefox"; however given the particular circumstances around Firefox (as noted above) we don't believe that abandoning our current policy is an option for us. At the same time we're always open to suggestions as to how we might improve our current practices in ways that are still consistent with our overall goals.
The full text of Mozilla's trademark and licensing policy is posted at http://www.mozilla.org/licensing/
Updates:
My comments to clarify some common misunderstandings. (10/11/06)
Synthesis,
Debian couldn't use the logos because they are not free; nobody is allowed to modify them.
The whole point of Debian is to create a distribution of software which the user can freely modify, so the non-free logos are right out.
Posted by: XanC | October 10, 2006 at 05:01 PM
Just to make sure everyone is clear on this, a Firefox extension specifies declaratively what application(s) it can be installed in. That declaration looks like this:
[em:targetApplication]
[Description]
[em:id]{ec8030f7-c20a-464f-9b0e-13a3a9e97384}[/em:id]
[em:minVersion]1.0[/em:minVersion]
[em:maxVersion]1.5.0.*[/em:maxVersion]
[/Description]
[/em:targetApplication]
(just pretend that's xml, this comment form is too clever for it's own good)
In fact, it's actually impossible for an extension to use any other type of check at install time to see if it can be installed, so there are no extensions for Firefox that check the actual name of the browser. No javascript code in the extension runs at install time.
The Debian people probably won't change the guid associated with their app, so extensions will still work (provided the don't actually make any changes that make their browser incompatible with Firefox.) I suppose you could argue that this would be a form of trademark violation, but I don't think anyone will care at that point.
Also, according to the Debian Free Software guidelines, Debian would not be able to accept a license for the trademarks from the Mozilla Foundation unless that license were available to everyone under the same terms, which means that the Foundation cannot give Debian a license without completely changing their trademark policy.
Posted by: db48x | October 10, 2006 at 05:09 PM
Adam,
I could change the entire firefox product to do nothing at all, leaving only one or two lines of original code, would that still be Firefox?
I can hear your arguements now.
"That's just stupid" - Yep.
"You have to draw the line somewhere" - Yep.
So the question is not whether or not anyopne is allowed to do it, but when does the result become a different product. Using your mygrep example, if you change it to the point were other scripts stop working then there is no way you could call it grep.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 10, 2006 at 05:14 PM
MD: So where exactly does trademark violation start?
Can I put "alias firefox=iceweasel" into my .bashrc without being sued? I think so.
Can I put up instructions on my website saying how to run firefox^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hiceweasel from the command line by typing firefox?
Can I provide a script which adds that to my .bashrc as part of my distro?
Can I call iceweasel firefox in the KDE/Gnome menus in my distro?
If I can't do that, can I supply a script which makes the change?
If not, how is that different from writing some useful instructions on a website?
Can I make the script run as part of the package installation?
Can I call the iceweasel package firefox in dselect?
Posted by: MB | October 10, 2006 at 05:18 PM
It isn't about the logo - the logo is just the lever to prevent Debian from patching older versions in stable. Mozilla is not interested in supporting their older browsers and also does not want Debian from coming out with a security patch before they do. Firefox is no longer Free(as in Freedom) software.
Lots of misinformation on this issue.
Posted by: Karl | October 10, 2006 at 05:38 PM
It's not about the logos. It's about security. If the Mozilla Corporation favors Windows over Linux and delays releasing available security fixes for Linux until it can release on all platforms, the free software community needs the ability to do patches immediately.
If it weren't for the Mozilla Corporation's control-freak policy, this would not be a problem: the distros would regularly re-sync with new releases and all would be well. But by insisting on total control, it appears that forking is going to happen.
What will be interesting is what happens next: will other distros unify around Iceweasel?
Posted by: Joe Buck | October 10, 2006 at 06:03 PM
Nice summary of your previous paragraph there Karl!
The only thing I have to say is that to me the trademark thing seems unnecessary. Lots of open source projects seem to maintain a good name without limiting customised versions to a different name.
I don't think the policy is wrong, I'm just not sure it's necessary.
What is surprising to me is that other distributers aren't grouping together and coming up with a decent name of their own which they can together establish as a recognisable name.
In the long run establishing a competing "mark" would probably hurt Mozilla.org's "name value" more than allowing people to use the trademark more freely. If every disto maker used [commonname] then Firefox would be a name largely associated only with Windows (which is obviously not an insignificant market but all the same...).
Posted by: Paul McGarry | October 10, 2006 at 06:08 PM
Copyright (which GPL addresses) laws are NOT the same as Trademark laws. Don't pre-suppose that the GPL overrides Trademark law in the U.S.
The problem is the (debian) license language that makes mixing free and non-free elements in a distribution an issue.
What is needed in lots of places (say video drivers, vertical market hardware interfaces/drivers, embedded systems, etc.) is a distribution license that allows free elements and non-free items (clearly partitioned and marked) to be installed from a single distribution set of media.
I'd think that a late binding/configuration lash-up to apply non-free items onto an otherwise free installation (under user consent) would protect the interests of all.
And yes, the globe only logo was made for distributions that are NOT to be marked with the Trademarked name or logo for "Firefox". I produced similar artwork (calendar only) for the "free" version of Mozilla Sunbird. As both the producer of the Sunbird logo and Mozilla software user, I support not corrupting verified versions of trademarked software. If you change the software, call it something else if the degree of change is determined by the trademark owners to be too great to have your derivative work ride on the coattails of there well known intellectual property.
Posted by: Mark Carson | October 10, 2006 at 06:20 PM
This is getting to be ridiculous. There is no great mozilla anti-linux conspiracy, there is no desire to restrain debian from backporting changes to stable (even if they do it in a stupid and broken way) MOZILLA DOESN'T CARE IF YOU DO THAT. What they do care about is that if you want to call it firefox, and still make significant changes to the base line browser that you use the "unbranded" browser a feature available at compile time that debian in an act whose irony is not lost on me patched the browser in such a way the prevent this from working!
To give us all a little perspective I've collected a few links to other Open Source packages who have similar trademark policies to Mozilla in this regard.
Mysql
http://www.mysql.com/company/legal/trademark.html
Apache
http://www.apache.org/foundation/licence-FAQ.html#Marks
Python
http://docs.python.org/ext/node51.html
Mozilla
http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/policy.html
Debian
http://www.debian.org/logos/
So I propose that people take a look at these and recognize that all these large packages protect their marks in the same way, and as such debian needs to treat their marks in the same way (not to mention their own official marks).
Maybe... just maybe the problem isn't in mozilla's turf, is that inconceivable?
Posted by: Anders Conbere | October 10, 2006 at 06:37 PM
/ What they do care about is that if you want to call it firefox, and still make significant changes to the base line browser that you use the "unbranded" browser a feature available at compile time /
That being the case, I think it's quite reasonable for Mozilla to keep exclusive rights to their trademarks. (As long as the unbranded browser has the same functionality.)
/ To give us all a little perspective I've collected a few links to other Open Source packages who have similar trademark policies to Mozilla in this regard. /
I'll also add AbiWord
http://www.abiword.org/information/license/tm_guide.phtml
I think the real problem is that issues with trademarks and the GPL haven't been very well thought out in general.
If there was an agreement on a consistent way of seperating out trademarked branding from free unbranded GPL source, then everyone would be absolutely clear on what parts are free, and what parts are trademarks.
Posted by: James G | October 10, 2006 at 07:48 PM
/ Maybe... just maybe the problem isn't in mozilla's turf, is that inconceivable? /
Actually, come to think of it though, the difference between Mozilla and the other cases mentioned is (I think) that Mozilla is claiming trademark on the whole icon set, whereas the others are generally just claiming a name and logo. I think it's Debian's objection to the trademark on the icon set that started the dispute, and I can see their point on that.
A trademark on a name and logo is necessary and important, but a trademark on a whole icon is just overkill.
Posted by: James G | October 10, 2006 at 08:20 PM
Alex: about cdrecord, the way I remember it was that Schilling wanted parts to be GPL and other parts to be CDDL - which just doesn't work, even from this layperson's point of view.
The flamewars with the various distro maintainers were IIRC actually about them adding in some missing support for DVDs or something which Schilling wanted to charge for (and so obviously didn't want them maintaing sets of patchs to provide that gratis).
Posted by: gwern | October 10, 2006 at 08:56 PM
it`s a simple problem of trust, Debian must trust Mozilla, Mozilla must trust Debian, if you start with good faith you can solve the simple problem between a cofee or two, not with a new silly name for the same browser.
The Ego of the developers it`s the problem, can you be more... adult? open? free?
open your mind guys, please, this is a win for M$ and other propietary software... c'mon!
Posted by: Fabio | October 10, 2006 at 08:57 PM
This is simple: no need to think about the wider issues, just look at this particular example and you immediately see the reasons.
How many of the commenters here have actually used the Debian-patched version of Firefox?
It's so unstable i have to install the one from mozilla.org to view several sites without crashing.
I happen to know this is because debian broke firefox, so i can go and get another version.
Random-user isn't going to know this. They are going to whine about it and drag Firefox's name through the mud on the internet, or at best waste people's time with bogus bug reports.
I could rant all day about how the maintainers of certain Debian packages need shooting in the head, but that's not the point. They should be able to fuck things up all they want, that's the beauty of open source.
But to pass off the result as being the same as the upstream? Not even with an indicator of the applied patches? Err... no.
Someone mentioned CDrecord... similar thing there. It just so happens that the author of cdrtools is a dickhead, so i kind of sympathise with the debian maintainers... however, it also so happens that the debian version of cdrecord routinely fails on me, whereas the upstream version doesn't [/anecdote].
Posted by: guest | October 10, 2006 at 09:26 PM
Just to point out, ``sendmail'' is trademarked and the name of a program, yet every MTA I've worked with (qmail, exim, postfix) has provided a sendmail command for compatibility purposes. Another example, GNU nano sets up a symlink for the trademark pico. I'm sure there are more.
Similarly, IceWeasel should be able to---if necessary for compatibility with existing scripts---automatically setup symlinks from firefox to iceweasel.
Posted by: Matthew R. Dempsky | October 10, 2006 at 09:48 PM
In my institution, Debian was the first OS that had firefox installed. To be honest, Debian users did the 'preaching' and converted *all* the Windows IE users to Firefox (this is over 300 Firefox installations).
Understanding the power of those (Debian) users, will they convert all Windows users to Iceweasel? They have the power, not Mozilla. No commercial can beat your local's sysadmin advice.
Mozilla responded to this problem very bad and they are the only one to loose. Marking it as 'Debian Firefox' wouldn't harm no one.
Mozilla don't forget! It's not MoCo that created the brand. It's the community. Once when you attack community, community will fight back. And, ATM, there aren't many world-wide companies that can fight with community.
MoCo was created *after* community made Firefox succesfull. Right? And this is what community gets back?
Posted by: not_relevant | October 10, 2006 at 10:19 PM
Adam:
The situation you describe of reworking a core utility doesn't work, since a simple mechanism exists to handle point any calls to 'grep' to a new location.
As an example: both vi and vim can coexist on a Linux system. Rather than have to remember to type vim, I simply rename vi and create a softlink from vi to vim, thus bypassing the whole issue. Saves a keystroke, even.
The similarity is that grep or Firefox can certainly be rewritten and handled in the same manner, so long as there is a certain level of functionality.
The difference is that changes to grep are restricted by social convention only. There is no legal requirement that grep functions a certain way.
The same cannot be said for Firefox. In order for a program to be called Firefox, the code has to meet additional trademark requirements. Otherwise, it's not Firefox.
Sure, the Mozilla Foundation could make an exception. But once you give an inch, eventually you have to give a mile and suddenly, the Firefox name is worthless as a name unto itself. The Mozilla Foundation has to defend the name each and every time or they lose the right to use the name exclusively for their product.
Ultimately, it's not a fairness issue, it's an issue of law, which is not always fair, in practice, no matter how much you may wish it to be.
Posted by: drivingmenuts | October 10, 2006 at 11:02 PM
Before anyone goes too far, step in my shoes for a second.
So my company develops a product called 'X'.
X is awesome and works under Firefox 1.5.0.y (all y versions). We've even tested it against Windows, Mac and Linux builds of Firefox.
All of a sudden we get reports that X doesn't work under Linux. Further investigation shoes us that it doesn't work under Debian distributions.
Investigating even more we realize that Debian has a 'different' version of firefox, or put in a different way, they 1.5.0.y version of firefox is different from what you get from mozilla.org.
Besides the changes, it's even binary incompatible (different lib versions) from the mozilla.org version.
So I then explain to my customers that the debian Firefox is actually not a 'real' version of firefox 1.5.0.y, it's 'different', even though the version and name are the same.
This is my company! I can't even imagine the pain Mozilla.or goes through with this.
If I buy a VW bug, then replace a bunch of parts with non VW parts, and sell it to you. It's only fair I tell you what that parts are and that your 'bug' is actually a modified bug, before it breaks on you, and your stuck in the desert trying to figure out why the german VW parts you have don't fit in it.
Posted by: dude | October 10, 2006 at 11:37 PM
This trademark policy is retarded. This hasn´t been a problem for other FOSS projects so why would it be for firefox?
Posted by: Lars Björk | October 10, 2006 at 11:46 PM
Looks like the problem with Debian (as seen by Mozilla) is this:
1. they don't use the "official" icons (because those icons are not DFSG compliant)
2. they don't submit all their code changes to Firefox to be reviewed by Mozilla
Now the second "problem" seen by Mozilla Foundation seems to negate the right to freely change the code and redistribute granted by the GPL.
Also, I don't think any of the other entities in the FOSS world that have trademarks on their brands (products) have similar requirements (especilly the second requirement), so comparing them to MoCo is not fair at all.
I also use Debian unstable with their version of Firefox at home, and Mandrake with the Mozilla distribution of Firefox at work, and I don't see any differences (from a user point of view), except the different icons being used and the move of Debian installed extensions/themes configurations out of the reach of my normal user account.
Posted by: mihai dragan | October 11, 2006 at 01:43 AM
So Mozilla wants to protect it Brand and Public mage. By alienating Debian Users (most of which are highly skilled and influential) they will gain the opposite. "Iceweasel" will become a running gag, making fun of Mozilla in perpetuality.
Posted by: myname | October 11, 2006 at 01:51 AM
the article at http://enterprise.linux.com/article.pl?sid=06/10/09/1434251&tid=41 says:
>
This sounds a bit pathetic and no links to the mailing list is provided, but if it's true, Mozilla people are quite agressive (threatening Debian with jeopardising their next release) with their not so reasonable requests.
Posted by: mihai dragan | October 11, 2006 at 02:00 AM
Call it F1R3F0X ?
Mozilla is getting to be more like a kernel maintainer. But instead of a kernel it's something important, like their exclusive right to sell firefox t-shirts.
Posted by: 1337 | October 11, 2006 at 03:43 AM
I think the mozilla foundation/corporation/group-of-huggy-bears is missing an important key concept here: When a distributor packages a program or set of programs, then it is the user's duty and responsibility to hold the package maintainer responsible -- not the original vendor. This is the case with *any* distribution. If my debian/ubuntu/suse/oddball-linux-distro-of-the-week package for program foo breaks, I can't hold the original programmer of foo responsible. That's like a consumer holding the producer of fresh goods bound and wrapped with a store logo responsible -- as soon as someone else wraps it up, it becomes their responsibility, especially if said wrapping process may involve any change. The wrapper may contact the producer and communicate about known issues, but that person still holds the ropes.
It's been like that for ages in Debian -- if you're crazy enough to use the current testing branch, and something breaks, that's a debian maintainer's problem. If KDE falls over, I don't go moan to the KDE team -- it's not their doing. Same goes with any package, inclusive of Mozilla Firefox.
Some other thoughts: from using debian for ages, I know that packages that make it into stable are rock solid. The mozilla dev team can only stand to benefit from the patches that the debian developers submit. And why not release the artwork under a less restrictive license? What's so bad about doing that? I can rip the images from anywhere anyway, and do what I like with them -- it's not like you can "hide" your images by "compiling" them. What do you have to gain by not opening up your artwork? Except that when I want to find a nice icon for a launcher toolbar to launch Firefox, I have to go hunting on the 'net. Granted, I get it, but I had to do some work. Why? Why can't I just get them, for free, as in speech and beer, when I get Firefox?
I'm sure that the debian developers would approach the patch submission concept a lot better if the mozilla team could just recognise their licensing requirements. How about a dual license? It wouldn't be the first time.
I just find it ridiculous that I will have to call my browser by another name, and make debian for newbies more difficult, just because people can't look at the simple bottom line: if we don't work together, everyone loses. There are a host of potential issues that arise from a namechange (which I agree with), as pointed out by authors above.
And guess what? If Iceweasel should fall on it's face, Firefox will still get the gun. Why? Because I'm not the only person who puts a lot of trust in the debian stable branch. I would naturally assume that the problem lay with the upstream author anyway. I wouldn't make it their problem (for reasons stated above), but I would know where it came from.
Posted by: Dave | October 11, 2006 at 04:13 AM
Hi! I haven't managed to read all the comments, so excuse me, if I'm repeating an idea... But I think Adam's got a point with the application's name...
Why not leave the name intact, since most of the functionality (and bugs, and compatibility issues, if any) is still the sole responsibility of MoCo developers, but require Debian to create an additional disclaimer, that in case something is wrong with Firefox shipped with Debian, it's Debian to be asked first. I'm sure they're capable of finding out whether it is them, who had screwed it up (if they did)...
I'm not a member of Debian or Mozilla Corp., but I feel deeply concerned about the future of these two projects. And I believe my solution might be constructive and reasonable...
Posted by: Andrei S. | October 11, 2006 at 04:37 AM