Mozilla vs Debian Analyzed

lisah writes "Linux.com has a behind the scenes look at the history of the ongoing debates between Debian and Mozilla that predate Debian's last release, Sarge. The article also reports the issue may have been laid to rest for good now that Debian tentatively plans on calling it "Iceweasel" but attorney Larry Rosen said this never should have been a debate in the first place. In addition, Mozilla has been prompted to clarify its position on the company's marketing blog."

Iceweasel?

[Blakey Rat]

Wow, what can you add to "Iceweasel?"

Someone around here has a sig that says something like, "letting a programmer name your product is like making a marketer program it." Never before has it been demonstrated so clearly. (Well, to be fair, at least the browser isn't Gimped.)

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Why iceweasel?

[maynard]

Dearest Debian Leaders: Why insult those who provide you (and everyone else) with important software? So there is a minor issue with the trademark name and Debian Free Guidelines. Is this something worth getting nasty over? I use Debian server side at work. I like stable - it is justly named. Please, focus on a new stable release and drop the interproject bickering.

Debian needs to relax

[Foofoobar]

As an Ubuntu user, I run Flash player, Nvidia drivers and several other proprietary additions. So why is this an issue? I understand if they don't to ship copyrighted logos but big DEAL. Does this comprimise the distribtion in any way? Could this open them up to potential lawsuits? I think they should just relax and let it slide. They're being a bit anal about all this as far as I'm concerned. Luckily, Ubuntu will still ship with Firefox so not an issue (even though it is a Debian distro).

Absurdity

[entrylevel]

Debian wants to preserve my rights to modify the artwork included with the distribution. I greatly appreciate this right! I sincerely hope they continute to defend my right to replace the crappy artwork they provide with the official Mozilla Firefox artwork, since I begrudgingly do this every single time Firefox is updated on my systems.

This would be like changing the name of the distribution to Dumbo GMAC/Looney and wondering why Disney and GM are sending you C&D letters, while Linus sends you an angry e-mail asking that you respect his trademark. It's free software, we can call it anything we want, and you are free to modify it! While technically true, that doesn't get anyone anywhere.

To Debian: We don't live in a black and white world. Please find another academic circular argument, and let this one go.

Iceweasel?

[nuzak]

Firefox remains the same, Debian's the one that doesn't come with Firefox. Why they didn't just move it to non-free is beyond me.

Oh well, Ubuntu already has things worked out with Firefox, so no naming games going on there. Debian should note well that sometimes downstreams do take over when the parent project became too onerous to work with. No one is too big for this to happen.

Re:Debian needs to relax

[Foofoobar]

Nothing is completely free. Even the name 'LINUX' is copyrighted. So why don't they fork Linux because I can't change the name? At a certain point, this argument gets tedious. Though I DO agree that if you wish to run a completely free system, you should be able to. So just move it into 'non-free' repo and leave it at that. If you want Firefox on your system and want a COMPLETELY free system, just do the build of the source yourself.

Re:Summary

[snowgirl]

The article also states that Mozilla is expecting Debian to submit all modifications for review, and that if the modifications were not satisfactory, whether the code was in deep-freeze or not, that they would have to change the name.

A lot of this comes down to "what's in a name"? Personally, I see Debian's position as more proper within the realm of the F/OSS community. If you toute your program as open source, yet say that if anyone makes any changes to the program that you do not approve of, that they cannot use your trademark, then that certainly doesn't sound "open" and "free" to me. Especially, if your source contains all of the trademark data in the code, and altering the content requires a great deal of work.

When you come down to it, it's the same situation as I have with Windows XP. "Oh, of course you OWN the CD, you bought it. But you're only LICENSING the data on it." They hide all this un-free double plus ungood behind telling you that you're free to do whatever you want, so long as you don't screw with them.

If a program is released as free/open source under the GPL, or BSD, or any license for that matter, but contains artwork inside of it that is restricted, then that's absurd, and retarded! I'm sorry that I have to take a Stallman approach to this issue, but it's stupid to have Copyleft and Trademark compete against each other...

Let's all trade our freedom of IP expression for the shackles of another IP prison!

Re:Summary

[jmv]

Debian don't want to include certain icons related to Firefox because the licensing of those graphics isn't consistent with the aims of their project. Mozilla say that's fine, as long as Debian don't call the package "Firefox".

I think it's not that much about the logo as it is about other changes Debian makes.

No villains, and everyone lives hapily ever after. The end.

Sure, everyone is technically in their right. However, Mozilla is being very much of a pain in the ass. Can you imagine how life would be for distros if GNOME decided it doesn't get called GNOME unless it's the official GNOME release (no modifications)? And then KDE could do the same, along with X.Org, OpenOffice.org, ... So you would get a Linux distro (actually, it couldn't be called Linux) and you'd find all kinds of programs you never heard about, each of them being a "rebranded" version of the official package. Or alternatively, each Linux distro would need to ask each maintainer for the permission to apply each of their patch (i.e. for every cvs/svn commit during development!). I really hope all Linux distros drop Firefox (the name, not the software) and go with the same new name (IceWeasel?). Maybe that could even make Mozilla change their decision, although I'm not too optimistic. At least it would be a name all Linux users would recognise (Firefox? What's Firefox?).

Re:Really sad...

[masklinn]

Really, I don't understand what the Debian Dev's problem was in the first place.

It's fairly simple:

• Part of the licensed Firefox artwork (icons and such) are trademarked and not available under a free license (they're, in debian-speak, "non-free")
• Debian's DFSG (its "social contract", if you will) doesn't allow anything non-free in the main distro: everything in the main distro must be freely modifiable at will by any user (1)
• As per the DFSG, the Firefox artwork therefore can't be bundled in the main Debian distro (at best, they can be relegated to non-free)
• Therefore, Debian's building and packaging system strips everything non-free from Firefox and builds what's left (using the free logo and stuff)
• But the Mozilla branding rules require that, to call a program "Firefox", you must -- among other things -- build and package the program with the licensed (non-free) artworks and icons
• In the past, the Debian maintainers had more or less struck a specific deal allowing Debian to package Firefox without the non-free stuff while still calling it Firefox
• But it looks like MozCo has decided to void that agreement, and required of Debian to either ship the branded package wholes or not ship it at all (not with the "Firefox" name anyway)

If someone tried to call Ubuntu, Mepis, or Knoppix "Debian", they would have issues too...

Probably, but what'd happen if someone rebuilt a whole Debian without including the (non-free) debian logo? Because that's what'd be equivalent to the situation between Debian and MozCo

(1): the Debian logo is non-free though, and this is considered a bug by the way

PS: this post was written with Mozilla Sunbeaver

Re:Debian needs to relax

[TheRaven64]

'Linux' is trademarked, not copyrighted. Most distributions include slightly forked versions of Linux and call them 'Linux' and since trademarks have to be defended to be retained there is some doubt as to whether it would still stand up.

Re:Iceweasel?

[EricBoyd]

Dude, an even better name would have been "IceHound". A Hound is much more the "opposite" of fox than Weasel will ever be :-)

It's all about the trademark

[QuantumG]

He says that Mozilla's stance on protecting its branding elements is no different than that of any other company that wants to ensure a high-quality user experience.

Yeah, so? That's the problem. You're not supposed to be like any other company. You're supposed to care about freedom.

Iceweasel

[Gabesword]

I applaud Debian for sticking to what they believe. I, for one, will be taking the free Debian artwork and name and replacing the standard Firefox logo and name on my distro(s) of choice. I think Debian should have a contest for a new Iceweasel logo every bit as snazzy as the Firefox logo.

Re:Summary

[PygmySurfer]

What if the Firefox version released with Etch absolutely sucks? What if it crashes regularly, trashes the user's home directory, and eats small children? Are user's going to blame Debian, because of their patches? No, they're going to blame Mozilla and claim Firefox sucks. Word will spread, and people will be under the mistaken impression Firefox is an unstable child eating browser from Hell. If Debian makes their patches and renames it, people will only be under the impression Iceweasel sucks.

I don't know what kind of patches Debian is applying, but they must not be trivial, if Mozilla wants to approve them before allowing distribution with their name and artwork.

The Mozilla foundation laid all of this out a long time ago. Debian knew the terms when they began using Firefox. They're free to agree to the terms or not use it.

Re:Summary

[PygmySurfer]

It sounds to me Mozilla isn't worried about them making modifications to the code, its the extent of the modifications ("grave concerns around the nature and quality of some of the changes the patchset contains" as they stated). They're concerned about the stability of Firefox, and rightly so. If the changes Debian makes impacts the stability of Firefox, its Mozilla and Firefox who're going to be blamed, not Debian.

Re:Iceweasel?

[JourneyExpertApe]

You make it sound so easy. Have you ever tried compiling Firefox? It's like trying to build a car from parts with a one-page instruction manual. ;)

As a sort-of-almost-not-quite-yet sdk

[bahwi]

Firefox is becoming more of a software dev platform. Recently, in an app I did, we had a prob with Firefox's GC for xml objects causing it to crash. An upgrade fixed it(at first a beta ver of FF/XulRunner) and now it's in the stable branches.

Now, pretend for a minute Debian had Firefox with that name and the regular icons. But they decided, for whatever reason, to roll back or use their own GC patch for the problem we had.

So, my app wouldn't work on Firefox, but would work on Firefox? Specifically, not on Debian FF but in the rest of the world? Any idea how inane this is? Firefox is trying to protect a brand of quality, if debian introduces a new bug into their browser, should Moz provide support? Should other people provide support in IRC, newsgroups, etc.. ?

What if I modified python to not use if anymore but use wellmaybeiwillonlyif instead, but released it, called it Python, same version, etc... should I be allowed to do so? Could I then say that python from python.org is not compatible with Python from python.org, which I should then call the unofficial branch?

Yeah, it's silly, but if I'm an OS, that's a lot of implementations of it that no longer support "if".

Oh good grief Mozilla guys!

[sbaker]

Oh good grief Mozilla guys!

Look - FireFox is OpenSourced - right? So for chrissakes let them
do what they want with it - that is THE ENTIRE POINT!!! If the
Debian guys (who are not exactly complete Klutzes at this stuff)
mess up, you say "Hey the Debian guys screwed up - come download
the real one from the usual places."

Geez - just make it happen and get over it.

Re:Summary

[jmv]

Yes, I can imagine it.
It would fucking ROCK.
Being able to assume that "GNOME 2.10" really is "GNOME 2.10" everywhere, and not "GNOME 2.10 plus some stuff that I thought might cool and without the stuff I thought I didn't need"... well, it would make life a lot simpler for app developers.

You're getting it wrong here. It would mean that Debian would have "TROLL 2.10 plus some stuff that I thought might cool and without the stuff I thought I didn't need", and RedHat would have "EMONG 2.10 plus some stuff that I thought might cool and without the stuff I thought I didn't need" and so on. Distribution are *integrators*, they can't just ship everything unmodified (they'd all be the same otherwise). (Most) People want something polished where apps fit together and all.

Re:Summary

[Millenniumman]

If you toute your program as open source, yet say that if anyone makes any changes to the program that you do not approve of, that they cannot use your trademark, then that certainly doesn't sound "open" and "free" to me.

No one will let you use their trademark. It reflects back on them. If anyone could call a product Firefox, and put all of the Firefox graphics on there, then they can do anything in Mozilla's name. Anything includes making spyware, a virus, or just plain bad software. That would cripple Mozilla's reputation. If I took some of your code, messed with it to make it destroy a linux installation when used, and released it as your software, would you like that?

Maybe Debian should be allowed to use the name for small patches, but that would have to be a special accommodation.

When Firefox ceases to be Firefox...

[9mind]

1) Debian doesn't want to use the offical patch system (i.e wait on Firefox's update approval process, etc.)
2) a user on a Debian system not knowing this goes to Mozilla IRC with a Firefox problem (this has already happened)
3) No one can solve the Bug... only to find it is an unofficial patch made or nto made by Debian
4) User complains that Firefox sucks because its not the same across systems
5) Brand is tarnished
6) Rinse. Repeat.

If you don't want to follow the guidelines, and follow your own way of doing things... change the name, or risk damaging the whole projects reputation. If I know Firefox works a certain way, I go to a new system and something doesn't work quite right, well guess what I'm not going to be happy. It's starts with the logo... but where does it end?

Iceweasel?

[SwashbucklingCowboy]

That's extremely childish.

Re:Iceweasel?

[bursch-X]

That's what I thought. OK, Debian wants to be all GPL and free (speech) and be completely religious about those issues, fine. But then they also say, we want to use Firefox with the Firefox name (we want to profit from Firefox' name value), but we also want to change it in ways that was not provided by the license (while using the Firefox name & logo).

DUDES! If you want to use Firefox in the "Firefox" brandend incarnation, you abide to their rules. You're so anal about your own licensing being free only and GPL throughout, but when it comes to other licenses you suddenly want them all to bend over?

Well fuck you Debian. If you want others to respect your licensing scheme and your decision to be all free and free only, then DO respect other license terms as well... geez.

You just can't have the cake and eat it.

Re:What about Linux?

[SirTalon42]

Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds, though hes never told Debian, Fedora Project, Ubuntu, Gentoo, RedHat, Linspire, Xandros, SuSE, that they couldn't ship a patched kernel and still call it Linux (pretty much every Linux distro adds patches to the kernel they ship).

Re:The problem is at Moz's end

[noahm]

Their other option was to stop patching the hell out of Firefox and do what every other distro does - get with the program.

Get with the program? Are you serious? Should we not patch Linux either? How 'bout X?

You should read Matthew Garrett's recent blog entry about why it's a good thing (for the Mozilla Corp, Debian, and the user community at large) for Debian (or anybody else) to be allowed to distribute patches. http://mjg59.livejournal.com/68112.html [livejournal.com]

Also, you should probably read this post [redhat.com] to the Fedora devel list that shows that Mozilla's trademark policies are a real problem not just for Debian but for other distributors as well.

noah

Re:It is a BIG Deal

[SirTalon42]

Actually the Linux kernel is forked all the time, and is generally changed far more than any distro changes Firefox. Most every single Linux distro out there doesn't ship the vanilla Linux kernel as released by Linus. Debian, Fedora, RHEL, Gentoo, SuSE, Mandrake, Ubuntu, Knoppix, Linspire, etc all ship modified (sometimes VERY modified, on an old version of RHEL when they were still using 2.4, they back ported LOADS of patches from 2.6) versions of the Linux kernel.

Re:The problem is at Moz's end

[SanityInAnarchy]

So far RedHat, SUSE and Ubuntu have agreed to cede control over ALL modifications, including prior approval of security patches to Moz Corp. Obviously Debian couldn't, wouldn't and shouldn't have done anything of the sort.

Here's the problem: Suppose Mozilla were to give Debian full control, Debian patches the hell out of it, and people say "Firefox sucks! It crashes all the time on Debian!" Now, suppose Debian gave Mozilla full control, Mozilla doesn't allow Debian-specific patches required to make it work properly, so people say "Debian sucks! Firefox crashes all the time on it, but not on Ubuntu!"

Both of them have legitimate complaints.

I already made the change earlier in the year. Done right FF plugins still work so no big deal.

One big deal: A newbie coming over from Windows looking for FF plus plugins/extensions won't find it, and won't have a clue that IceWeasel is really Firefox. They should've at least attempted to make it clear that it's still Firefox, it's just Debian-specific.

I'd have to go with tradition here. Distros get to release derivative versions, and still call them by the original name. In return, distros do the best to make everything play nice, and generally will listen to reasonable requests -- for instance, Gentoo removed the ebuild that built Cedega (then WineX) from the CVS, because although it was technically legal (they allow CVS access, but charge for prebuilt packages), it made it just as easy, if not easier, for Gentoo users to use the free (CVS) version than to subscribe.

Distros have to keep in mind that users will just go and get upstream by themselves if the distro gets it wrong, or they'll switch to another distro that gets it right. Upstream has to keep in mind that if they refuse to cooperate with distros, they won't get distributed, so they should at least make an attempt to play nice with distros and other packages.

In this case, neither is willing to allow full control, and both are paranoid that the other side will tarnish their good name. Because of this mutual stubbornness, both sides lose out. I will likely never prefer Debian over Ubuntu again, and not just for this reason.

IceWeasel beats FireFox usage stats by end of 2007

[wmaster]

That's something very likely to happen. The real power of free and open source software always was and is what happens with forks. After all, that's how evolution works. An IceWeasel (and no, I did not vote for this name) being an improved, faster and even more secure browser than it's parent can easily be adopted not just by other Linux distributions, but also by MacOS (and even Windows!) users. It always begins with compatibility problems (incompatible code, license or personalities) and often creates the better software product. Let's support it and help make it strong. I vote for a full fork and substantial improvement. I would also invite all MozDevs to join IceWeasel, where a real free and open source browser will be done without "corporate governance". Greetings, Chris

Re:Iceweasel?

[Ash Vince]

Good on Debian for sticking to their guns, let's hope enough distributions have the balls to stick by their guns and start refusing to use the FireFox logo or icons in protest.

Not sure why you say this. It seemed to me that the problem was that debian wanted to use firefox with all the firefox logos and artwork, but make some changes behind the scenes to the code. No I can understand firefox objecting to this, as if debian muck up their modifications it will reflect badly on the firefox brand, not debian.

If you want to release firefox as part of your product (with modifications) then that is your right under the GPL providiing you also release it under the GPL. But you may not use the Logo's and artwork that come with firefox as you are no longer releasing firefox, you are releasing your bastardised version of firefox so need to label it as such. That way if you release complete crap it reflects badly on you, not the Mozilla corp.

I love your comment about the capitalistic stuff, once upon a time I agreed with this. Then I got a job and joined the real world.
What Mozilla are actually trying to do is protect their own public image, it has nothing to do with monopolies or market abuse of any kind.