I disagree with the whole underlying point of the article. I think Mozilla
should be able to stop someone taking their source, adding a whole bunch of
unstable "improvements" as patches and calling it Firefox. It would damage a
brand that is one of the best brands that FOSS currently has. It doesn't stop
people getting the browser, if they don't Mozilla's restrictions they could
call it, say, EarthHorse.
The article throws around terms like "restricted distribution" and
"severely limiting all activity" but gives examples like CentOS where CentOS
and Red Hat exist happily together but with Red Hat still able to build up
a brand with some protections.
The article ends "just like patents and traditional copyright, it's totally
incompatible with the spirit and ethos of open source software.". People here
may not like the length that copyright lasts for but the GPL relies on the
fundamental idea of copyright. Similarly there may be some issues with
trademarks but if so they need patching not a whole sale revolution as
this article seems to suggest.