Firefox Not Really Free?

"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!

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.

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.

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?

> 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...

ha! that's funny.

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.

@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).

The annoying thing is that they were ok with it before and suddenly they say that everything they promised has no meaning

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.

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.

> 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.

> 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.

that Mozilla doesn't trust Debian

Yeah, more than a little insulting...

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

The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's being part of a Debian system. If the program is extracted from Debian and used or distributed without Debian but otherwise within the terms of the program's license, all parties to whom the program is redistributed should have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the Debian system.

It seems that it applies to trademarks too...

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.

Sander,

Good summary.

Thanks

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

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.