Mozilla Cracks Down On Merchandise Sellers

An anonymous reader writes "MozillaZine reports that the Mozilla Foundation is cracking down on those selling unofficial Mozilla-branded merchandise. This takes the form of an open letter addressed to retailers of goods that bear the Mozilla name or logos. The letter suggests that the Foundation are willing to work with those selling Mozilla wares, as long as they get a cut and the retailer isn't operating in the US, Canada or Mexico, where they would be competing with the Foundation's own Mozilla Store. Threats of legal action for non-compliance are issued, albeit with friendly overtones. This open letter is part of the Mozilla Foundation's campaign to better enforce its trademarks, an effort that began when the Foundation was launched in July. In a related move, the Foundation announced that the new Firefox artwork is not open-source and can only be used in official builds or those sanctioned by the Foundation - this has led to debates about whether Firefox is free enough to be included in the Debian Linux distribution."

If this were Fark

[ObviousGuy]

This article would get an Ironic tag.

This, like the GFDL, is one of those aspects of some aspects of the OSS movement that doesn't seem to really follow the tenets of the whole OSS movement.

Oh come on...

[TwistedGreen]

How is an open letter 'cracking down'? Talk about biased reporting...

Free

[molafson]

Either you believe in freedom or you don't, right? Wrong! These bootleggers are (presumably) profiting off the work of the Mozilla collective, without contributing anything back. That goes against the spirit and the letter of the project. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Firefox artwork

[orthogonal]

the Foundation announced that the new Firefox artwork is not open-source and can only be used in official builds or those sanctioned by the Foundation - this has led to debates about whether Firefox is free enough to be included in the Debian Linux distribution."

Will the Debian Linux distribution refuse all Open Source Software that also says, "you can re-compile this software, and even add your own modifications, but you can't represent your own compilations or modifications as official builds"?

Because that's all that reserving the artwork does: the artwork is an imprimatur, a symbol essentially equivalent to a signature, that identifies a build as official.

I've made some of my code open source, but I've never said that people could remove my name from the copyright, or conversely, put my name on their own work. If my signature were a Chinese ideogram, or a picture of fox wrapped around a globe, I wouldn't let anyone else use that.

If the Debian Foundation decides that Firefox isn't "free enough", can I produce my own Linux distribution and call it "Debian Linux"?

Re:If this were Fark

[MigrantHail]

I fail to see how them protecting their rights is a violation of the OSS tenets.

Mozilla is trying to prevent the selling of illegal merchandise that takes away from their rightfully, and legitimate business.

OSS isn't about stealing. It's not about denying people their legal rights.

Irony

[gad_zuki!]

Hey! Don't rip off our Godzilla rip-off!

Unofficial merchandise = publicity

[armando_wall]

Wouldn't that unofficial merchandise help to spread the word about Mozilla?

I mean, the foundation could use the publicity among non-tech people wearing the logo.

Re:Free

[cmburns69]

These bootleggers are (presumably) profiting off the work of the Mozilla collective, without contributing anything back

They are contributing brand awareness.. ;)

Why should the artwork be open "source"?

[brucmack]

Personally I can't really see how the artwork should fall under open source. They're binary files, right?

This is purely a branding issue, it has nothing to do with the underlying program. They want to be able to make some money off of merchandise that they will hopefully invest in bettering their technology. How is this a bad thing?

I found it funny that the original poster felt it necessary to add "albeit with friendly overtones". I guess this was an attempt to ward off the knee-jerk reactions? Really, I wouldn't see the problem if they were rude about it, they have a right to protect their name and logo.

Re:Why?

[prof187]

I think that what they are concerned with is that if somebody sells something that, say, falls apart as soon as they get it, they associate the name Mozilla with poor quality. And beyond that, they might not make the connection that the store isn't an official Mozilla-type-product seller, so they could mistake it as being something sold directly by Mozilla Foundation.

Debian: Didn't mozilla.org think this through?

[steveha]

When I first read about the trademark on the Firefox logo, and the plan that if you see that logo you know it's a quality build, I just assumed that mozilla.org had thought it through completely.

Looks like I was wrong.

Debian asked about how the logo works, and from the mozilla.org answers, it appears there is no fallback plan yet! They don't have an alternate logo available. Worse, you can't even call a modified version "Firefox" anymore? That's a problem!

Given the mozilla.org plans for trademarks, I really don't think Debian can build with the official logo and the official name. That's a shame.

If mozilla.org lets Debian use the name and logo, Debian will build Firefox for about a dozen different architectures (Power PC, 68000, Alpha, etc.) and mozilla.org won't have to do it. mozilla.org would be crazy to keep this from happening.

I suggest a compromise plan: allow the artwork and the name for any version of Firefox, but add an official "seal" logo to the about: dialog, and add "official build" to the name in several places.

steveha

Re:No free brand/goodwill

[Compenguin]

But mozilla.org is not a for profit company, if the brand loses some value so what, i don't see apache making distros remove branding, in fact it has gained more publicity that way. Very few Linux users get mozilla from mozilla.org, most used distribution versions, making the distros use other names will only hurt their name recognition in the end.

Unless I'm missing something...

[meganthom]

The Mozilla store features one lousy t-shirt. One!!! Who's going to help me with my Mozilla coffee (www.rjtarpleys.com) addiction? They give proceeds to the Mozilla Foundation, but they aren't included in the Mozilla store, and they operate out of the US.

Re:Good for Them

[rampant mac]

"Free Software shouldn't be equated with the right to brazenly steal from those who provide it."

I agree! I mean, no open source projects have ever looked very similar to Windows or MacOS... They've all treaded their own paths, much like jTunes or WindowMaker!

Evolution looks so much like Outlook, there should be royalties involved.

yes, it should!

[qortra]

One could offer value-added services for a GNU/Linux distribution that they have invested no time in, or burn Debian CDs and sell them for a profit, use the Linux kernel to build evil devices for one's own sadistic pleasure (within the bounds of the law). That's what it is to be free! When something becomes truely free, those kinds of restrictions are nullified. So, if I release music for free (and I have), you have the right to brazenly sell them in your business for a profit and give nothing back to me.

Those are the costs of freedom. Live with it or don't. But don't pretend to support OSS when you aren't willing to suffer the cost.

Re:Hollywood Not Out of Ideas?

[Gherald]

Though it's not like Zilla ever owned the trademarks to 'Phoenix' and 'Firebird' in the first place.

Protecting the brand eliminates consumer confusion

[cenonce]

The only thing Mozilla has is its brand. If it doesn't protect the brand, it can't control the quality of the product. It doesn't want others claiming to represent Mozilla through the use of its brand, nor does it want consumers to go to others when there are problems with Mozilla. I believe trademarks are the most important aspect of an open source project. A lot of open source projects have great programmers, great quality, but if they don't have a strong brand, they will never get the following needed to keep the project going, let alone make it big (like Mozilla or Ximian). You have to known... and to be known in any business, you need a strong brand and some decent marketing.

Trademark law may be lumped in with intellectual property, but it less about monopolizing an idea (patents) or controlling access to creative works (copyright) and more about eliminating consumer confusion.

If somebody wants to take Mozilla code and make their own browser or mail client, they can do that... but they can't call it Mozilla.

I wonder how many slashdot readers would have a problem with Mozilla enforcing its trademark rights if it was Microsoft who was selling Mozilla merchandise or a Microsoft Mozilla web browser?

Re:Firefox artwork

[orthogonal]

The artwork identifies the software. Usually free software has good enough quality that people don't have to worry about official builds.

Of course you have to worry about official builds, so that you don't get this build:

#include <offical.artwork.h>
#include <trojan.h>

int main( int argc, char** argv ) {
trojan::pwned CATS( "All Your Base Are Belong to Unofficial Build" ) ;

actLikeNormalBuild( "/images/official/firefox.jpeg" ) ;
}

Or, for those who don't read C++: I prefer an official artwork that identifies an official build, because that makes it easier for me to avoid non-standard and possibly suborned copies.

And yes, someone will argue, "trojan writers would just steal the artwork too, only the md5sum is proof!", and while that's true, let's also keep in mind there are Trojan writers who try scrupulously to stay within the law and would be deterred from violating copyright, while at the same time showing a complete lack of ethics, such as Gator/Claria [gator.com] and Bonzi Buddy [bonzibuddy.com].

Re:Free

[Perky_Goth]

Offcourse! Even Stallman says so! It's in the FSF webpage (google yourself).

For crying out loud, if people couldn't sell open source there would be no Mandrake or Red Hat or... It's still Free, if you change it you can't call it that name so you don't dilute the name of the product. Is that a bad thing?

Zealots...

Re:Debian: Didn't mozilla.org think this through?

[Chris Pimlott]

That was just my same thought. They've chosen a rigid policy that has little room for compromise; you can't even use the name of the browser!

I also resent the implication of the article that Debian is somehow being stuck up about holding FireFox up to some impossibly high standard of freedom; Mozilla said "you can't use the name or logo on modified builds," Debian is saying "We're doing some minor modifications, but we can we still use the name?"

Mozilla made new rules, Debian is simply trying to follow them and is looking to work with them to be able to continue providing FireFox to its users.

Re:Yes, and here's why

[mar1boro]

Even ignoring the fact that AOL does not own Mozilla;

1. We want large corporations to be involved in Open Source.
They use their resources to grow the project, then return the
code to the community.

2. Open Source is about ensuring quality, adherence to standards,
and defence against hoarders (monopolies).

3. Open Source is _not_ about impoverishing coders and their companies.
You may not get rich from selling packaged versions of your project,
t-shirts, mugs, and books. You might be able to support yourself
and your shop, though. Successfuly defending a trademarked logo
might be the difference between life and death for a project.

The Point of Free Software

[jaaron]

The point of free software is to provide a common base from which all people can profit.

Uh, the point is they (Mozilla) wanted to use a license which allowed users to have access to the source code. Anything above and beyond that is reading into the motives of the developers (in this case, originally the Netscape company) and supposing all open source developers have some sort of unified altruistic mission. There is no single open source movement. Open Source describes a licensing scheme and, perhaps, to a degree a programming methodology (though that's a stretch). Thus each organization or company which releases software under an open source license can do so for many reasons, but that doesn't necessarily mean they do it to "provide a common base" or that "all people can profit."

Some organizations and individuals have made Open Source into a sort of social-political movement. The foremost of these is the FSF. But not everyone agrees with them, nor needs to.

Read the GNU Manifesto... the goal is to have software available for free.

Mozilla does not use the GPL. It uses the MPL [mozilla.org] which is very different. Additionally, Mozilla is not part of the FSF, is not "free software" in this sense, and can have completely different goals from the rest of the so-called open source movement.

The first mistake most people make when evalutating open source software or the individuals and organizations which produce such software is to assume there exists a united effort with a single goal. Such a case is just about as likely as all humanity having a common purpose and single goal.

More on this subject at my blog [jadetower.org]

Re:If this were Fark

[adagioforstrings]

I really don't think this is ironic; unfortunate, perhaps. US law does force an organization to police its trademarks in order to retain protection:

Title 15, Chap 22, Subchap 1, Sec. 1065:

no incontestable right shall be acquired in a mark which is the generic name for the goods or services or a portion thereof, for which it is registered.

Companies who do not make the effort to defend their marks are seriously disadvantaged should they require a legal remedy to a branding issue. I think it's probably a wise move for Mozilla.org being high profile software.
Look at the next sentence...
"Could you google something for me on MSN?"
That could happen, especially the way the google name is thrown around these days. I really think this is a case of 'being prepared' and protecting the integrity of the brand. That can be important, even for OSS.

Re:Why?

[Myopic]

I don't really agree. I mean, if I take any piece of GPL software I can modify it so that it sucks and redistrubute it. Sure, someone could think that emacs sucks if my personal version of emacs sucks, but that's the tradeoff for freedom.

If you're worried that derivitave works will reflect poorly on your work, Free Software might not be for you.

Re:If this were Fark

[Anonymous Coward]

I dont think the google issue quite applies here, think about kleenex, only kimberly clark can make kleenex, walgreens has to sell tissue paper.

Re:Firefox artwork

[Myopic]

Okay, okay, sure. But modification and redistribution is the ENTIRE POINT of free software. Can you imagine if every change had to be accompanied by an entirely new name? We'd have millions of different softwares with only slight differences but different names. Hell, there wouldn't even be enough names to go around.

Open Source Implode.

[Chanc_Gorkon]

It's idotic reasons like this that c an cause a Open Source implosion. What are we, the users, supposed to think? I think Mozilla seems to forget that to get users, they need to get the browser in front of eyes. Linux distros using Mozilla Firefox as the default browser can expose lots of users to the browser. Same goes for people making t-shirts. People can ask...what is that symbol for and the wearer can say te best damn drowser in the world! That is FREE publicity. Also, last I checked, Mozilla was considered open source. Anyone can download it. It's not like the Mozilla project is there to MAKE money unlike Microsoft and IE.

Re:I feel like I'm at fault...

[Dachannien]

Give them a cut, give them the credit they're due, and everybody wins. Their move is based more around the harsh realities of our present-day overlitigious society, not around an interest in snuffing out everyone who's a fan of their product.

Re:Why?

[madfgurtbn]

there is nothing preventing Microsoft from distributing a broken version of Linux. However, they can't call it Linux, because the trademark is owned by Linus Torvalds. This is a good thing.

Yup. How else do you know it's really MOzilla. A lot of the comments regarding this article are utterly wrong to think the Mozilla team is only chasing t-shirt profits. It's not about MONEY, it's about defining what Mozilla Firefox is.

The Debian discussion is a good case in point. Debian has been making changes to Firefox, so the product they are shipping really is not Firefox, it is Debian's derivative of Firefox. That's all well and good, but they sure as hell shouldn't be calling it Firefox anymore.

Debian, we appreciate your principled pursuit of the one free distro, but if you change Firefox, it ain't Firefox anymore; it's a fork.

The trademark is the only way (other than actually reading all sources) we know we are getting the REAL Firefox and not some bullshit Gator spyware.

We all know Debian is not going to re-write FireFox in bad ways, but someone will. I'm just surprised it hasn't happened more yet.

Maintaining the integrity of OSS and the reputation of OSS will become THE MOST DIFFICULT challenge as popularity grows.

If Mozilla had 50% marketshare and no control over what "Mozilla" is, there would be 7,000 different Mozilla's out there. It's going to be bad enough that there will be 7k forks of Moz at some point all with different names and logos.

WTF?

[geekoid]

"The letter suggests that the Foundation are willing to work with those selling Mozilla wares, as long as they get a cut and the retailer isn't operating in the US, Canada or Mexico, where they would be competing with the Foundation's own Mozilla Store"

They will happily take a contibution fof source code, without paying, but you can't sell or distribute the product?

We used to laugh when people said companies would abuse OS developers. we would say, anybody can distribute it, it can't be controlled.

Well, thanks for shitting on us Mozilla.

hmm, since its a trade mark issue, maybe I'll just compile my oen sans any reference to 'Mozilla' or any of there oh so valuable trademarked Godzilla rip off image.

Bull

[geekoid]

"2. Open Source is about ensuring quality, "

not it is not. that is just a possible outcome of open source. However, if your product doesn't have the 'many eyes' it can still be lacking in quality.

"adherence to standards,"
nothing says an open source product must adhere to standards. They usually do, but in know way is this a part of Open source. How many open source products adhere to a standarad menu bar?

"You might be able to support yourself
and your shop, though. Successfuly defending a trademarked logo
might be the difference between life and death for a project."

true, but isn't there something of a double standard where you take contibutions for a product, then don't allow people to distribute it?

Rebranding

[soramimicake]

This is stupid. I wonder if the Firefox developers would not scream bloody murder if somebody just takes the Firefox code, re-brand it with a new, freely usable name and logo -- say, Debifox, and everyone starts using that and forgetting about the Firefox name.

"Totally free use" of the name & icons may not be the ideal solution for Firefox, but they need to make a little more compromise than this.

Re:If this were Fark

[mindstrm]

Google is a poor example.. trademark does not apply to common speech. If I choose to make your trademarked product name into a verb and use it, you have no recourse. This, however, does not invalidate your mark.

Xerox, Kleenex, good examples in north american anyway.... these are valid trademarks.. you cannot market your photocopier as a xerox machine, ,or your tissue as "kleenex" even though in the common tongue we take both to define their entire class of product.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but t-shirts and coffee mugs are not GPL-licensed.

Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

They should take a lesson from Tux. Make the logo freely available.

Re:Debian can just call it...

[Ed Avis]

When the name was changed from Firebird to Firefox there was a lot of prattle from the Mozilla people about how they had carefully researched the name and chosen it to have no trademark issues. I took this to mean that the new name would be unencumbered and one could use it without infringing any trademarks.

But it looks like they had something else in mind. In fact, they wanted to create their own legal obstacles to using the name. I wish they had made this clear from the start.

Depends on the Mozilla organization, doesn't if?

[ishmalius]

Really, all of this ruminating about what should be done with this Open Source project's resources is moot. The project and its assets belong to Mozilla.org and its contributors.

The license allows others to use it. The Mozilla guys are not pulling stuff out of Open Source. They are taking material which is originally their own, and putting it into Open Source.

People seem to forget this.

Re:Why?

[Gerv]

If you're worried that derivitave works will reflect poorly on your work, Free Software might not be for you.

How so? See the Apache license, for example - it says you can't endorse any derivative works with their trademarks. Other versions of the BSD licenses say the same. There are a large body of free software hackers who believe they shouldn't have to put their name or their trademarked brand names on (potentially) rubbish derivatives.

Gerv

Re:Debian can just call it...

[Ed Avis]

I think it would help if you suggested a name that people could use which isn't subject to legal restrictions. Otherwise you end up with everyone calling the browser different things. There needs to be a name which has a technical meaning, but not necessarily a legal meaning. When OpenBSD includes perl, they have patched it a little, but it is still perl. Similarly, Linux is a trademark, but you don't need to get permission from Linus or change the name for any alteration you want to make.

Re:yes and no

[julesh]

The use of 'Mozilla' in this context was never a protocol issue. I've never seen any protocol specify that HTTP user agents must contain the string 'Mozilla'.

Internet Explorer was trying to trick dynamic web pages into thinking it was Netscape.

Of course, the primary reason why an attempt to sue MS would have failed is that trademark protection doesn't extend to anything that is hidden from the user -- the only offences under trademark law are related to attempting to pass your product off as somebody elses, or otherwise confusing customers so that you can trade on somebody else's reputation. Thats why 'trade' is in the name. Because MS weren't openly calling IE 'mozilla', no issue arises.

IANAL, etc.

Re:Um...

[omarin]

...the browser sniffing/restriction thing is still happening... I can't tell you how many damn times I have run into a page on the web that basically says "keep out", because I am not using a MicroSnot browser... it pisses me off, and I write a polite but irate note in such cases to the site owner/webmaster...

Re:Debian can just call it...

[Ender Ryan]

For unmodified binaries

How about source distributions? For example, can Gentoo include firefox, using the name firefox, and include the firefox artwork? What if they include a couple minor bugfix patches?

It seems to me that Free Software shouldn't be encumbered by trademark issues any more than is required by current trademark law.

I sure hope the foundation doesn't become _overly_ concerned with legal matters; that is the path to boorishness.

I have donated money and time to the foundation, and if I find the foundation to be too strict regarding their trademarks(ie. more than required by trademark law), I will cease my support.

The only opinion I'll put forward regarding the current trademark policy, is that I think that the foundation shouldn't restrict domestic, unofficial merchandise. Taking a cut makes sense and is only fair, but an outright ban is ridiculous, unfriendly, and flies in the face of the ideals of a lot of people who have put time, money, and code into the foundation's projects.

disclaimer: I don't sell unofficial merchandise, nor have I ever purchased any. I was considering purchasing some official merchandise, but I'll have to rethink that.

Mozilla may not be safe either

[glorf]

Consider that Toho (the owners of "Godzilla") went after Davezilla [slashdot.org] a while back. Then consider that they just announced that Godzilla is retiring [slashdot.org].

Someone at Toho is bound to realize that with the big G in retirement, they are going to need a new revenue stream. And someone else is bound to offer the idea of the Darl McBride method of revenue generation.

And I don't think Mozilla would pass for "generic" as related to trademark law. If "Kleenex" isn't generic enough to lose its trademark status, I highly doubt Mozilla is. And even then, its generic use isn't among people but among computer programs.

Re:Debian can just call it...

[DCowern]

First, I want to thank Gerv for being the whipping boy on Slashdot over this issue. That takes balls man, my hat's off to you. ;-)

Second, I'd like to offer a little constructive criticism. The Mozilla Foundation is increasing the cost (in terms of work that has to be done) to release a distro. By itself, it might not seem like a lot to contact the Mozilla Foundation and work something out but what happens if you have to "work out" things with every piece of software you want to include in your distro? Right now, these headaches only exist with XFree86 and FireFox but what happens if other popular packages like KDE, Gnome, Gaim, Xine, OO.o, etc. all took stances like this? No one would ever release a distro because they'd be too busy "working things out" with each and every project they wish to include. This doesn't even take into account the licensing complications for the distro as a whole.

Please, as an organization, take a big step back and consider what you're doing. Thanks for listening. -- Dave