not just Firefox...
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| number6x Sep 28, 2006 7:56 AM EDT |
"Here is a perfect example of licensing follies, and perhaps unintended consquences- Firefox cannot be modified and distributed without approval from Mozilla. But it can be modified and distributed without approval if you name it something else." If I take Red Hat Linux, and Modify it, I cannot legally re-distribute it as Red Hat Linux. I'll have to change the name and take out the non-free parts, like white box linux Heck, I cannot take Debian GNU/Linux and modify it and distribute it as Debian GNU/Linux, I'll have to change the name. Debian is very protective of their name. Just ask the DCC. They were once the "Debian Core Consortium" who planned to market a modified version of debian to business. Debian made a stink because they used the name Debian, but were not The 'Debian'. Maybe Firefox should change its name to Debian. Then we'll see how 'free' Debian is! |
| tuxchick Sep 28, 2006 8:18 AM EDT |
I don't think comparing distributions to individual applications is quite a valid comparison, though you're right about trademarks. All Linux distributions modify at least some of the applications to a degree. The GPL lets them do this without phoning home to the mother ship for approval. Just think if they had to get approval for every single patch in every package- we would never see a distribution ship, ever, nor would we see the rapid and abundant development of free software that we have enjoyed all these years. Firefox is not GPL, and yes, the terms of the license must be honored. It's a dumb license, but there it is. |
| dinotrac Sep 28, 2006 9:34 AM EDT |
The real question, I guess, is what it means to be entirely free. Nobody is "entirely free". Every licens places some kind of obligation on somebody. The FSF calls the Mozilla license free, which is good enough for me. Give them credit, btw, for acknowledging the possibility of being free but incompatible with the GPL. If the FSF can take the high road -- headaches are headaches, but don't make something non-free - then I certainly can. |
| nalf38 Sep 28, 2006 10:40 AM EDT |
Not sure I see what the headache is about. They can still distribute the code in any form they sit fit, can't they?---As long as they call it something else? Can they at least say it's based on Firefox? |
| jimf Sep 28, 2006 10:52 AM EDT |
> Can they at least say it's based on Firefox? Not even sure about that. The latest joke that's been running around IRC is that their just gonna call it S#!t . Then, when they ask what browser you're running, you can just reply 'aw, just the same old... ' Personally I think it's legal nit picking in the extreme, but what do I know... |
| nalf38 Sep 28, 2006 10:55 AM EDT |
ha! that's funny. |
| tuxchick2 Sep 28, 2006 12:00 PM EDT |
I'm being unnecessarily snarky, it just seems silly to value a trademark more than the program itself. It's like they're saying "you can take our code and turn it into a pile of S#!t and we don't care, as long our Holy Trademark is protected." Hmm, actually it's starting to make sense. Ruh oh, time to hit the meds. |
| Sander_Marechal Sep 28, 2006 1:56 PM EDT |
@tc2: That's the trouble with trademarks. You have to prove you dillegently protect them or you'll loose them. It's the same reason people get legal letters about the Linux trademark (gave quite a stink some time back). |
| JackieBrown Sep 28, 2006 5:11 PM EDT |
The annoying thing is that they were ok with it before and suddenly they say that everything they promised has no meaning |
| dcparris Sep 28, 2006 5:14 PM EDT |
This is interesting. RMS has said that trademarks become all the more important when dealing with libre software. He actually seems to advocate the use of trademarks in the way we see with Red Hat, etc. I won't say you can quote me on that, but I am about 90% positive that's what he meant. |
| dinotrac Sep 28, 2006 6:02 PM EDT |
Rev - You have to understand what a trademark is to see why he views trademarks differently from other IP. Unlike patents, which give you a limited monopoly over some form of creative output , a trademark is actually a guarantee of sorts. It tells buyers the origin of your work, and, by knowing where it came from and that you are the one that did it, implies a certain quality based on your reputation. A trademark, then, is encapsulated information about the "goodness of somethng". It is your reputation. |
| jdixon Sep 28, 2006 6:06 PM EDT |
> The annoying thing is that they were ok with it before and suddenly they say that everything they promised has no meaning That's why you get legal promises in writing, with the terms defined to both parties' satisfaction. |
| Sander_Marechal Sep 28, 2006 9:59 PM EDT |
> The annoying thing is that they were ok with it before and suddenly they say that everything they promised has no meaning The probably found out later on that trademarks actually have to be defended. Linux didn't do it at first as well. Then they realised that they could loose the trademark and started enforcing it. The only thing that annoys me about this story is that Mozilla didn't simply sign an agreement with Debian that they can use the FireFox name without submitting patches for review - that Mozilla doesn't trust Debian. |
| jimf Sep 28, 2006 10:10 PM EDT |
that Mozilla doesn't trust Debian Yeah, more than a little insulting... |
| jezuch Sep 29, 2006 6:40 AM EDT |
Quoting:that Mozilla doesn't trust Debian That's not the point. From The Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG): Quoting:8. License Must Not Be Specific to Debian It seems that it applies to trademarks too... |
| Sander_Marechal Sep 29, 2006 7:03 AM EDT |
Good catch jezuch. I didn't see that. Mozilla is still acting pedantic (sp?) though. For two reasons: 1) Mozilla can protect their trademark even when it's not attached to the MPL license. Compare Linux. It's trademarked yet not specifically protected by GPLv2. And still being defended from trademark infringement worldwide. 2) Mozilla needs to focus on people using FireFox in their own trademarks and deratives. Again, compare Linux. You're free to use Linux as part of your productname or website title and what not. But as soon as you want to register your trademark that contains Linux, then you have to pay. In short: The current MPL wording is not needed to defent their trademark. But perhaps in Mozilla's mind its a branding issue, not a trademark issue. Anyway, I'm with Debian on this. Renaming FireFox is the easiest way to solve this problem, unless Mozilla manages to push out a new MPL before etch is released. |
| number6x Sep 29, 2006 7:09 AM EDT |
Sander, Good summary. Thanks |
| jezuch Sep 29, 2006 7:45 AM EDT |
There's a "loophole" that Mozilla set up deliberately for such cases: the so-called "Firefox Community Edition", which allows it to be "Firefox but not strictly Firefox", with some modifications explicitly allowed. But it seems that Debian has some modifications that it doesn't want to back out and which are not covered there. Full discussion is here: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=354622 |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 03, 2006 2:56 PM EDT |
I just read that entire thread. In most cases the changes that are not allowed to call it a Community Edition are backported security fixes. The Mozilla 1.0.x branch is not supported by Mozilla, but still gets security fixes on Debian because it's in Sarge. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!