Debian forced to stop using "Firefox" name

[dann]

So if I am correct in assessing the gpl and the mpl, what we have is that the mpl allows for code additions that may fall under a more restrictive license. So long as those additions do not modify exisiting mpl code, then you can distribute a mozilla binary with your additions and not have to provide the source code for those additions because you have not modified the mpl codes. Such a situation can violate the gpl, thus making the two licenses incompatible.

Now we come to a different issue, copyright/left vs trademark. The two are very different and copyright/left does not apply to trademark and trademark does not apply to copyright/left. But I guess there are instances when they can bleed: http://www.legalzoom.com/law_library/tr ... s_cpy.html

So Debian takes the mozilla programs and changes the icon because they deem the trademark on the logo as not free. In doing so they violate Mozilla's Trademark. If you use the Mozilla name you must also use the Mozilla approved logos.

I can understand that as Mozilla must protect it's trademark. If it didn't, the what is stopping Microsoft from slapping the IE logo overtop the Mozilla logo?

Debian's logo is trademarked and falls under similar restrictions. As pointed out in a comment to the original blog posting, Debian would have to remove the Debian logo from debian because it violates freedom. If I take the Debian distro, make some changes and distribute it as debian and use the debian logo, Debian has the right to revoke my use of the Debian logo because it is trademarked, thus a violation of the GPL.

What is not clear is how trademark applies to GPL and vice versa. From this article on MySQL: http://www.open-mag.com/features/Vol_24/GPL/gpl.htm ; it is clear that Trademark is outside the realm of GPL. But Debian does not see it this way.

It's a fine line to take a stand on, I think. Mozilla's stance is that the logo has nothing to do with the functionality of the program so it should not be covered under the gpl as such. But the GPL requires no restriction on the code that violates the tenants of the gpl so could the logo's trademark be a valid restriction violating the GPL? I thought that artwork and such, as it is not relevant to the functionality of the program from a code standpoint, does not have to be covered under the GPL. So the logo fall outside the realm of the GPL, right?

But, if you change the logo you have to change the name of the Mozilla program as you now violate their trademark. And once you change the name you also change the functionality of the program in some respects, aren't you? It's a different name now, you have to actually edit the source code and change the application name. Thus, the Trademark restriciton infringes on the GPL!

It's really confusing. I can understand Debian stance with regards to software freedom, but I also understand Mozilla's Trademark issues. The GPL should be more clear on Trademark issues with regards to this. To the general user is sounds like a non-issue and ridiculous, but apparently it's pretty serious from a business standpoint.

[Tsuroerusu]

Such a situation can violate the gpl, thus making the two licenses incompatible.

When you use a dual licensed program, you pick one of the licenses, and use the program under that license.
For example if Debian were to fork Firefox, they would say "We choose the GPL", and then their version would be GPLed only. Because the Debian folks are not the copyright holders, they can't change the licensing of Firefox from what it already is to something else, but that's not necessary, because you just say I want this under GPL, good, then you can redistribute the GPLed version you got, and it's only GPL, for example if the KDE guys got in a disagreement with Trolltech, they could fork Qt and maintain their own toolkit.

The GPL should be more clear on Trademark issues with regards to this.

A perfect example/reason why an update for the GPL is a good idea, unlike what the Linux kernel developers are saying, the GPL is not just for Linux, it's for A LOT, so why should it be trashed because the kernel developers think it's a bad idea? I'd really like to hear what KDE, GNOME, Xfce, Xine, MPlayer, GStreamer, OpenOffice.org and so many other important projects have to say about it.

[KaosX]

It's funny how a whole community (linux as a whole) can be so gracious about everything being free and we're getting trapped on what a logo/icon?

Ive been using swiftfox lately...I wonder if that comes into violation of this as well (http://www.getswiftfox.com - its a architecture tuned version of deer park which is the beta for FF rc's)

[Vogateer]

I know that what I find important about the GPL is that it gives you control over how your computer operates, and establishes reciprocity for programmers. I'll show you my code if you show me yours.

Trademark of icons and artwork isn't about taking away control of your computer, it's about protecting the name of people and companies who want to be able to establish an identity that can be associated with their work. Without such trademark protections, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to trust that whatever you purchase or use truly came from whom you think it did. Such restrictions, in my opinion, are comparable to the restrictions in the GPL in that they provide the consumers and users with the information they need so they can trust their computer and its software. When you can say, "This icon means that it came from this company that I trust," then that icon goes beyond just representing the simple binary on your hard drive, and becomes instead a symbol of the company and a symbol of the trust you place in them.

I think Mozilla is correct on this one, and I don't see any benefit in Debian refusing to allow trademarked icons and such and the increase in trust they can provide, particularly when Debian has it's own trademarked artwork that I'm sure it would rightfully protect if it were misused.