thelinuxlink.net

Since Debian, and many Debian derivatives, including Ubuntu, change the Firefox logo to a blue globe, because Mozilla's Firefox logo is non-free and copyrighted, Mozilla has asked them to stop using the name Firefox. Some suggestions for the new name are "Iceweasel", or "Freefox".

You know, I think Debian is a great distribution, but you never hear of crap like this happening to Pat V., and Slackware.

http://ze-dinosaur.livejournal.com/12083.html

Wally Balljacker wrote:You know, I think Debian is a great distribution, but you never hear of crap like this happening to Pat V., and Slackware.

Or even freakin' Red Hat, who are even stricter with regards to trademarks and stuff.

This happened to Gentoo as well but after a while they were approved to use it. I think it kind of crazy that they have to jump through so many hoops just to use an icon and name.

CptnObvious999 wrote:This happened to Gentoo as well but after a while they were approved to use it. I think it kind of crazy that they have to jump through so many hoops just to use an icon and name.

The problem is that the logo doesn't meet the Debian Free Software Guidelines, and if Debian uses a generic logo, they are violating Mozilla's trademark, and therefore can't use the Firefox name as I understand it.

I love Debian. I think it's a great distribution but the level of zealotry these days is a little disturbing (in regards to it's long term survival). A reasonable person would say, "ok, we'll use the standard icon". End of story. These guys are really making life difficult for themselves and their users. I hear this story and the story about the Linux kernel hackers are against GPL v3d2 and makes you wonder. Is the the GPL more of a hindrance than an enabler?? I'm all for Free Software but more and more I feel like the level headed people are being pushed away by the zealots. This is not good.

Well, Debian and Ubuntu should understand the position that FireFox is taking.... as they have licensed logos of their own, to which they have their own "acceptable use" guide lines.

A quote from Debian's own logo page...

Debian needs to protect its property from any use which could hurt its reputation.

And, Ubuntu seems to have their own logo registered....

© 2006 Canonical Ltd. Ubuntu and Canonical are registered trademarks of Canonical Ltd. Admin

Their terms of use seems to be hidden somewhere, as I cannot find a clear link to it on their main page. So their policies seem, what .... shadier?

Perhaps Red Hat and other distros. don't have problems because they respect other organization's rights to their registered names and logos more -OR- go about getting proper permission from the owners before taking "creative licenses" and altering them.

Judland wrote:Well, Debian and Ubuntu should understand the position that FireFox is taking.... as they have licensed logos of their own, to which they have their own "acceptable use" guide lines.

A quote from Debian's own logo page...

Debian needs to protect its property from any use which could hurt its reputation.

Exactly. How is this any different in Mozilla's case? They need to protect what is theirs.

As to why the other distros have not stopped using the name yet, it's very likely that Mozilla has just not asked them yet, and maybe Mozilla is just starting with Debian. Trademark and copyright owners must take their own steps to enforce their marks or risk losing the legal protections available to them. I am sure that if the Fedora Project, Slackware, and the others are contacted by Mozilla with a similar request those distros would take similar steps.

Of course, Mozilla can always waive the restriction on a case-by-case basis and I would bet they would do this for all of these distros. Mozilla just needs it in writing so others in the future can't claim that Mozilla didn't enforce their marks.

But if the Linux distro, take Slackware for example, doesn't change the logo, or Firefox at all for that matter, then Mozilla has no problem. Mozilla is just going after Debian because they are replacing their branded logo with a generic logo.

That's true. Debian and Ubuntu are trying to have it both ways: generic logo but keep the name. Mozilla is saying logo+name or no logo+no name. It doesn't seem that Mozilla's request is that unreasonable.

I vote for shitweasel. I'm with Pat on this one - I think some things in the GPL are very worth fighting for. I think refusing to use a non-free icon is not one of them. I don't honestly know that we know all of the particulars. However, I also think protesting at an ATI shindig because you think "blobs" suck is asshattery. But then, I didn't start using linux based on ideology, I started using it because it kicks ass.

Snarkout wrote:I vote for shitweasel. I'm with Pat on this one - I think some things in the GPL are very worth fighting for. I think refusing to use a non-free icon is not one of them. I don't honestly know that we know all of the particulars. However, I also think protesting at an ATI shindig because you think "blobs" suck is asshattery. But then, I didn't start using linux based on ideology, I started using it because it kicks ass.

LOL, I agree completely.

"protesting at an ATI shindig because you think "blobs" suck is asshattery"

That is signature worthy material right there.

You know what makes this whole ordeal hilarious? The font used in the Debian logo smack dab at the top of debian.org is NON-FREE. They have the audacity to reject a freakin' ICON, yet they have no problem using non-free fonts on their own website.

Patrick wrote:I love Debian. I think it's a great distribution but the level of zealotry these days is a little disturbing (in regards to it's long term survival). A reasonable person would say, "ok, we'll use the standard icon". End of story. These guys are really making life difficult for themselves and their users.

Well, I think it's partly anti-free software/anti-open source on Mozilla's part, Firefox is tripple licensed under the MPL, GPL and LGPL.
You'd expect that if you put a logo in a GPLed package you apply the GPL to that logo as well, I think that's their problem, Debian only uses a "globe" (http://static.flickr.com/5/6790149_d973b16813_t.jpg), in what possible what does that harm Mozilla? Debian is promoting the damn browser by distributing it, if they wanted to, they could just say screw it, we're forking the thing, like did with cdrtools, or just make Konqueror their default browser (I'd sure like that last one ).
I could understand Mozilla if Debian took the stable Firefox sources, swapped in an alpha version of the Gecko rendering engine, made a bunch of weird changes to the UI, and still claimed "It's Firefox from Mozilla!", but the only thing they're doing is making an icon so that it complies to their "constitution", what is so wrong about that?
If it was my decision, gun ownership would be illegal without some kind of permission, and all kids were taught karate or taekwondo in school, but that's just my own opinion.

Patrick wrote:I hear this story and the story about the Linux kernel hackers are against GPL v3d2 and makes you wonder. Is the the GPL more of a hindrance than an enabler?? I'm all for Free Software but more and more I feel like the level headed people are being pushed away by the zealots. This is not good.

Pat, I think you should read this: http://www.libervis.com/gplv3_is_to_pre ... ot_kill_it

I think some of the points the kernel developers are are based on misunderstandings, and others are catering to corporations who do open source for profit, and not for benefiting the users and securing their rights.

You and I both hate DRM, what is so wrong about making sure that users are not forced to just abide by it? For example, in the case of Tivo, if the kernel they were using were under GPLv3, they could use DRM to verify the kernel is the one they support, it's fair that they don't support user's own kernels as they don't have control as to what options it's compiled with, but not use it to make sure I only use that kernel, because as a part of the sourcecode, they have to give me the key so I can sign my own kernel and make it run with all the features of the original one.
I think that is perfectly fair, no one should control what I use my damn computer hardware for (Screw Apple, and their friends at the RIAA and MPAA).

Tsuroerusu wrote:... in what possible what does that harm Mozilla? Debian is promoting the damn browser by distributing it, if they wanted to, they could just say screw it, we're forking the thing...

They're doing the same "harm" as anyone would do by violating the use of Debian's logo and name... as stated on their website (see my previous link).

And in the U.S. (and many other countries I'm sure), if one violation isn't challenged, then it becomes the defense for someone else who really takes advantage of the situation and does something really scummy. Debian wants to use a globe... but what about the one guy who puts out a distro and identifies Firefox with an icon of some guys sweaty balls or the hood of a KKK clown suite?

I'm sure if Debian made a fair proposal stating why a globe should be used in their distro. rather than the standard Firefox logo, then asked permission to make such a change, the Firefox people would allow it. Have they tried that approach at all? It isn't clear, from what I've read about it.

If Debian wants the right to take a product's logo and do what they want with it, then they should also put their own name and logo in the same "boat". On their webpage they should state that anyone is allowed to do anything they want with the Debian name and logo... no restrictions applied.

Anyway, I guess what I'm saying is that I can understand Firefox's request. They have a global image they'd like to maintain and to "advertise" so people know that the Firefox they're getting is the "real deal".

Judland wrote:

Tsuroerusu wrote:... in what possible what does that harm Mozilla? Debian is promoting the damn browser by distributing it, if they wanted to, they could just say screw it, we're forking the thing...

They're doing the same "harm" as anyone would do by violating the use of Debian's logo and name... as stated on their website (see my previous link).

And in the U.S. (and many other countries I'm sure), if one violation isn't challenged, then it becomes the defense for someone else who really takes advantage of the situation and does something really scummy. Debian wants to use a globe... but what about the one guy who puts out a distro and identifies Firefox with an icon of some guys sweaty balls or the hood of a KKK clown suite?

I'm sure if Debian made a fair proposal stating why a globe should be used in their distro. rather than the standard Firefox logo, then asked permission to make such a change, the Firefox people would allow it. Have they tried that approach at all? It isn't clear, from what I've read about it.

If Debian wants the right to take a product's logo and do what they want with it, then they should also put their own name and logo in the same "boat". On their webpage they should state that anyone is allowed to do anything they want with the Debian name and logo... no restrictions applied.

Anyway, I guess what I'm saying is that I can understand Firefox's request. They have a global image they'd like to maintain and to "advertise" so people know that the Firefox they're getting is the "real deal".

OK, fair enough, I can see that, but I still believe that if you download a tarball of free software, you should be assured that everything in that tarball is free, and not have little bits of non-free traps and stuff here and there.
Either you're free/open or not, and if the tarball of Firefox includes that non-free artwork, I'm gonna say that that tarball is not free software, as I can't do everything that the GPL states I can with it, because of trademark law. But that's just my opinion, I hate a "hidden deal".