Mozilla Cracks Down On Merchandise Sellers 565
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."
Mozilla Firefox's plan (Score:5, Funny)
Debian can just call it... (Score:5, Informative)
So the Debian guys could just change one letter and change the "o" to a "u" in FireFox, pronounced firefu.. :-)
Re:Debian can just call it... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Debian can just call it... (Score:5, Informative)
We only want to create obstacles for those who would _ab_use the name. If you want to call your modified version "Firefox", get in touch and let's talk. For unmodified binaries, distribute away - there's no restrictions there. See our licensing page [mozilla.org].
Gerv
Re:Debian can just call it... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Debian can just call it... (Score:5, Informative)
Gerv
Re:Debian can just call it... (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Hollywood Not Out of Ideas? (Score:3, Insightful)
Um... (Score:5, Interesting)
What are they trying to do? Copyright a generic name?
Re:Um... (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/lic
Redhat does the same thing with their distribution, but its spread out thoughout the entire distro.
Re:Um... (Score:5, Informative)
Everything else is part of a GPL'ed package, that you have to be allowed to distribute as is. If you read their license, they are quite clear that those are the only two things they hold copyright and trademark over.
Kirby
yes and no (Score:5, Informative)
Re:yes and no (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:5, Informative)
Netscape has always(1) used the term "Mozilla" internally for its browser. Back in the Netscape 3/4 vs MSIE 3/4 days, Netscape was winning the browser war, and the aformentioned evil stupid twats that think restricting web content using browser sniffing is a "good thing" was restricting access to Netscape only. MSIE put the Mozilla (Compatabile;
(1) May or may not be "always"
Re:Um... (Score:4, Interesting)
If that's the feature you are using, yes. You should always use feature detection [jibbering.com] rather than user-agent sniffing when you want to actually use those features.
For instance, all the people who sniffed out Netscape to use layers back in the 4.x days weren't very happy when they found out that 6.x had dropped layers for a more standard approach. Had they used feature detection, nothing would have broken.
Re:Um... (Score:3, Interesting)
What happened to the idea of giving accurate nifo in protocols?
Re:Um... (Score:3, Informative)
No. Mozilla is the original Netscape code name for its browser. When Microsoft introduced their first browser, IE 2.0, they touted it as Mozilla compatible. That's where that came from. To answer your question, no, Mozilla is not a generic name
Re:Um... (Score:3, Informative)
"X Windows" is not correct. The correct name is "The X Window System"
Re:Um... (Score:3, Informative)
Windows is a registered trademark of Microsoft Corporation in the US and most other countries, and is also a generic term (which has been ruled as such in the US) from as far back as the 1950's -- incidentally Microsoft may be generic/descriptive and is also a registered trademark of MS Corp.
X Windows (which predates Microsoft Windows) is now called the X Window System (possibly due to threats from MS Corp.).
Microsoft Corp. do not hold a trademark on Word.
Lindows.com have not actually won yet --
Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're worried that derivitave works will reflect poorly on your work, Free Software might not be for you.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
Do we need a TGPL (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps something that lets other people use the a trademark in most cases, so long as the guy using it doesn't use it in ways that invalidate the trademark..
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)
I know I'm missing something, but shouldn't they be encouraging this form of free-adversiting?
No.
If you don't defend a trademark, you lose it.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
If this were Fark (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:If this were Fark (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Why should the artwork be open "source"? (Score:5, Insightful)
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 should the artwork be open "source"? (Score:3, Informative)
Raster graphics are just binary files, but that doesn't mean there's no source. Most raster icons are made with multiple layers and with paths, so a GIMP
Re:Why should the artwork be open "source"? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:If this were Fark (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:If this were Fark (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Yes, and here's why (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
That is quite subjective (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe those items are what Open Source is about for you. You seem to have more pragmatic concerns in mind. However, other people feel differently. OSS, for me, is an idealistic venture as well as a pragmatic one. I really like the idea of freedom of ideas and information. OSS seems likes the best implementation yet of my ideals. However, pressing legal action for trademark violation is certainly not something that I can support in good conscience.
I respect your viewpoint of OSS and its purpose, but realize that many would disagree.
Bull (Score:3, Insightful)
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 log
As the saying goes. (Score:4, Funny)
At the sound of the tone free software will have officially "sold out".
Damn this dragon! its only producing one egg a day! lets cut it open and harvest a lifetimes worth of eggs!!!
Simple solution for Debian (Score:5, Funny)
Problem solved.
Re:Simple solution for Debian (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Simple solution for Debian (Score:3, Funny)
Good for Them (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Good for Them (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Good for Them (Score:4, Interesting)
It's in everyones best interest for Mozilla.org to assert its trademarks. Except for people who'd sell Mozilla merchandise without paying royalties. And for those that would call their own product "Mozilla".
yes, it should! (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Wait... (Score:5, Funny)
That's cute (Score:5, Interesting)
(I mean, I am all for Moz, but the irony is unignorable)
Re:That's cute (Score:5, Informative)
If you want, the proof is likely on google or mozillazine.
Oh come on... (Score:4, Insightful)
Free (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Free (Score:3, Interesting)
This is wrong. The point of free software is to provide a common base from which all people can profit. Read the GNU Manifesto... the goal is to have software available for free. This would allow someone to setup an internet cafe, setup
The Point of Free Software (Score:5, Insightful)
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:The Point of Free Software (Score:4, Informative)
That is not true, according to Mozilla.org's licensing policy [mozilla.org]. They intend to license everything under a three licenses where possible: the GPL, LGPL, and MPL. You could make a GPL derivative of most of Mozilla's code (with a few exceptions [mozilla.org]), you just can't fork your modifications back into the tree without licensing it under the LGPL and MPL as well.
Re:Free (Score:3, Informative)
The truth is much more complex than that. Under GPL, you are granting others permission to distribute package A under restrictions designed to force them to distribute package B than uses package A under a similar license. If you will, "I'll give this to the community, but, if you use it, you have give your stuff too".
However, this does not preclude you from distributing the same software under a differ
Re:Free (Score:5, Insightful)
They are contributing brand awareness..
Re:Free (Score:3, Informative)
Spirit, probably, but agains the letter of the project? If that were true, then the license would have to have a part that specifically states that the license is only valid if you either not profit from using the product, or give stuff back...
If the artwork of the firebird browser is not covered by the same open source license
Firefox artwork (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Firefox artwork (Score:5, Informative)
Its more than official builds. If Debian compiles their own build of Firefox, they cannot call it Firefox or use the Logo. If you read the thread you'd know that. To quote Mr. Dotzler: "Before we're willing to sanction the distribution of a modified version of Firefox under our trademark name and logo, we need to know what those changes are, specifically."
That's not an unreasonable request, however Eric Dorland (Debian's Firefox maintainer) also has valid concerns:
"I understand that you would want Firefox to have the highest level of quality when using that name. But even if you approved of my patches today, what about tomorrow? Would I have to have you approve of every release that I do? If we disagreed and could not find a compromise would you disallow us from using the name? I'm not sure I would be comfortable working in that kind of situation."
Personally, I thing it is probably a non-issue. If they can't reach some sort of agreement then Debian can still compile the modified Firefox code with another set of artwork and call it something other than Firefox. I propose it be called "Phoenix"
Re:Firefox artwork (Score:3, Interesting)
Except that their is a company [phoenix.com] that writes BIOS code that would probably object to other software being called Phoenix.
They just want to be able to use the name (Score:5, Informative)
Contrast this with Debian's logo policy [debian.org]. Anyone is allowed to use the Debian name and logo in a derivative product, but there is a *second* logo reserved solely for Debian's use on official builds and any approved projects, at their discretion. This way other people can use the name and logo that the Linux public knows while marking a distinction between them and official Debian-endorsed products.
Re:They just want to be able to use the name (Score:3, Interesting)
Consider the following:
If you put a supercharger on your f150, is it still an f150, or "random guy's truck (powered by ford)"
Re:They just want to be able to use the name (Score:3, Interesting)
I think the automotive equivalant (eg, "Clairion" splashes across the top of the windscreen, or the custom symbols or words put elsewhere) would seem to apply here.
Where one draws the line... well, I think that would need to be decided on a case-by-case basis.
Re:Firefox artwork (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course you have to worry about official builds, so that you don't get this build: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].
Relax (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes that's right kids... (Score:3, Interesting)
Seriously, all this litigation, threats of lawsuits, license clauses in software, logos and so on - it's starting to make "Open" look a heck of a lot more like "Closed" to me; imagine what it looks like to the Clueless Observer.
Irony (Score:5, Insightful)
No free brand/goodwill (Score:5, Interesting)
Some might argue if you're doing something for free, why do you want to protect your branding. Well, branding is what consumers look for in making a decision (most of the time), and if a company can maintain a strong branding, it is able to continue pushing its mission/objective using the same brand, and consumers will continue to use products based on that mission/objective.
If Sun didn't control the use of naming of Java, we might have too many different version of *Java*, and eventually consumers couldn't find one to stick to and the standard might be lost.
Imagine if people start printing Slashdot logo all over all kind of vibrators...
Re:No free brand/goodwill (Score:4, Insightful)
Alternate Default Theme (Score:3, Interesting)
Isn't all the artwork in the chrome themes? Even the default?
So why not replace the default theme with a "free" theme?
Or would that substitution somehow break the license?
Yeah, it'd mean it couldn't be directly included, but once the theme
Hell, if it's really that simple, I'll learn how to make themes and make a "free" (beer+libre) theme and a script to replace the default with it prior to distribution.
Of course, there is the issue of the icon on win32, but that's neither here nor there.
Debian: Didn't mozilla.org think this through? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Debian: Didn't mozilla.org think this through? (Score:3, Insightful)
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 t
Re:Debian: Didn't mozilla.org think this through? (Score:3, Interesting)
Because it will cause confusion. The same browser, that looks the same and works the same, will have different names depending on where you get it.
I think debian would be complaining if Lindows had just called their distro "debian". It is, after all, a modified debian.
Debian isn't proposing to change the way the software works. They need two things: the ability to distribute the software under their own free software guidelines, and the ability to make slight tweaks to the sour
Re:Debian: Didn't mozilla.org think this through? (Score:5, Informative)
It's not quite that benign, unfortunately... as of 1.6, at least, Debian is shipping some changes to their custom Mozilla build that correspond to bugs that the main Mozilla tree has wontfixed (because they felt that those changes were bad for the project in particular and Internet standards in general).
As for Debian users posting bugs in the Mozilla.org database, we get a few dozen after every release. They're almost all due to changes Debian has made in their version of the builds... Figuring this out usually takes quite a bit of digging.
This is not to say that they break things on purpose, and they do make a bunch of changes that are beneficial to their users. But the point is that their builds have sufficiently different functionality that confusion of them with the Mozilla.org builds by users _does_ use up a good bit of QA and developer time.
Unless I'm missing something... (Score:3, Insightful)
The missing ??? (Score:3, Funny)
The first patentable business method on slashdot:
1. Write kick-a$!$# software
2. Give away core product(s)
3. Develop strong trademark
4. Profit!!
Seriosly, this is a good move for Mozilla; trademarks themselves are valuable, properly nurtured. The Mozilla foundation and the Mozilla's users would certainly like to be able to build value without ever having to sell its core product.
Protecting the brand eliminates consumer confusion (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Doesn't appeal to "average user" anyway (Score:3, Interesting)
Just one man's opinion, but scary icons and unfortunate names (GIMP comes to mind) probably have a much bigger impact on adoption than people realize.
Alternative (free) artwork is being provided (Score:5, Informative)
A simple "--enable-official-branding" flag can be used when building to include the official artwork. Otherwise, generic versions of the artwork are included (which are free/open). This is being worked on as we speak and should be in the nightly builds this week.
Steven Garrity
Mozilla Visual Identity Team
Re:Alternative (free) artwork is being provided (Score:4, Interesting)
There is a simple option for those that don't get official permission from the Mozilla Foundation to use the trademarked artwork.
A simple "--enable-official-branding" flag can be used when building to include the official artwork. Otherwise, generic versions of the artwork are included (which are free/open).
This seems like a good compromise. I hope you also let the distributions use FireFox or in the icon names, such as "FireFox (Mandrake)" or "FireFox (Debian ed.)"
My main concern is for "Mozilla Coffee" though. This is the best mail order coffee I've tried, I doubt any other dealers can offer that level of quality. I've ordered a few other coffies online from vendors such as Gevalia, Cafe Britt, and my SO got some Gourmet Garage coffee with a donation to the local NPR station. These were all undrinkable, we tossed it all. But I put in a standing order for the Mozilla Coffee from R.J. Tarpleys, it's not quite as good as the same day roasted stuff I get from my local roaster, but it's good and they tell me some of the proceeds go to Mozilla. If you can get a fair licensing deal that keeps the quality as high, I implore you to make a US distributor excemption for them. Roasted coffee doesn't last many days, no one else online seems to be able to deliver it still fresh enough to drink.
I may be a coffee snob in your estimation, but you will profit more from 25 cents a pound on coffee I can drink than $2 a pound on lesser coffee.
Re:Alternative (free) artwork is being provided (Score:4, Informative)
The coffee people have a deal with the Foundation. It's cool.
Gerv
Re:Alternative (free) artwork is being provided (Score:3, Informative)
You asked "are you sure you have the right authority to say these things?"
Well, I don't have any authority on trademark issues for Mozilla, and I don't speak for the Foundation. However, I'm really just stating the facts here, not a policy or opinion.
You also said "Debian can't just use the flag and compile, because they have to be approved to use that artwork."
That's right. Debian has two options:
Re:I'm missing something (Score:3, Informative)
Emailing licensing@mozilla.org and getting permission.
When you download the source, the artwork isn't necessarily included. It gets pulled if you set the configure option.
Gerv
RTFA, RTFL, 2 seperate issues (Score:5, Interesting)
The Debian issue is due to the fact that Mozilla.ort does not want people taking the Mozilla icon data and using it other things - for example, they don't want me writing a Bittorrent program and using the Mozilla icon in it.
However, that means that part of the Mozilla source tree is NOT freely reusable - not even in a GPL style context. I can take a chunk of Mozilla *code* and put it in my GPL program, but not the Mozilla *artwork*.
---------------<hr type="poor mans">-----
Now, the second, seperate issue is this issue of folks making Mozilla mugs, hats, jackets, license plates, doggie dishes, and what have you, and selling those. THAT IS NOT A CODE ISSUE!
That is a STRAIGHT trademark issue - if Mozilla.org does not control such issues they will lose the trademark.
Now, first of all I think it's a pretty damn good sign that people feel it is worth making Mozilla branded whatnots - it is a sign we are winning, REJOICE!
However, it IS pretty scummy to cash in on the Mozilla name and not give back. Sure, I'd buy a Mozilla patch for my jacket, but I'd want to know that at least SOME of the money was going back to Mozilla.org!
So chill out, folks. Take a breath, read the letter, engage brain.
Mozilla Store (Score:3, Interesting)
Alternative Icons (Score:3, Informative)
-Firefox Icon v3 [deviantart.com] by Jyrik (remade from scratch)
-Mozilla Firefox Final [deviantart.com] by auto-logic
-Firefox Experiment N3 [deviantart.com] by weboso
-Tails as Firefox [deviantart.com] by polimero
I am sure all of these people would be happy to open source their designs.:P
Errata (Score:3, Informative)
I feel like I'm at fault... (Score:4, Interesting)
Probably dumb luck, but it's interesting that this happens less than 48 hours after I put this page [paulcouture.com] and sent it to the licensing and marketing folks at Mozilla - mainly because as they mention in the letter they don't offer much in their store. God forbid the community try to continue this grass roots movement that is OSS an get the word out that there is something on the planet besides IE to use.
I sent a request to their licensing folks to see if I can continue to offer the free graphics I spent a few hours on (reworking the FF logo as a vector, etc.) for download, but I'm not feeling too good about the reply I'll get. I guess that no one in this industry can work on something for the love of working on it, everything has to boil down to a f*ck!ng paycheck. I guess it's true that everyone has a price, and everyone that has a product used by more than 3 people HAS to have a team of lawyers to make being a fan/supporter hell... pretty damn disappointing.
Re:I feel like I'm at fault... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I feel like I'm at fault... (Score:3, Interesting)
Cut of what, I'm offering the graphics on that page for download for free, I don't make a red cent off of it, hell - it costs me money if it becomes a popular graphic because I have to pay for the hosting costs. It was my way of giving back to the developers with no intention of raking in any cash, but rather providing something useful in getting brand awareness out there.
I'm not able to contribute to the code, that's above my skill level, I built these graphics so I could make some tee-shirts for myself a
Open Source Implode. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Open Source Implode. (Score:4, Interesting)
Stupid (Score:3, Interesting)
WTF? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
How Long Until (Score:3, Interesting)
Or are the Toronto Raptors supposed to send the letter, since they existed first.
t-shirts want to be free! (Score:3, Funny)
This is a lack of girlfriend problem (Score:3, Funny)
mini-rant on open source licensing (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe, just maybe, a bunch of people with a lot more influence than I have could put aside their differences and egos and accept that there are a variety of rational views, and we should have a small set of standard licenses that is varied and general enough that just about everyone should be able to pick one and be almost completely satisfied.
Creative Commons got it right. Look at their list of licenses. It's not very long. I was actually considering publishing something under a creative commons license recently, and couldn't find any license that perfectly described what I wanted, but I found one that was close enough for practical purposes. I recall reading that Linus Torvalds used the GPL for Linux in deference to the GCC project, rather than an absolute devotion to the FSF's ideals. If accepting a "pretty good" license works for him, it ought to work for most of the rest of us.
Choice and uniformity both have value, but striking a balance between them requires either some organization or evolutionary dumb luck, which I don't think we should wait for. So, how about it, people?
Depends on the Mozilla organization, doesn't if? (Score:3, Insightful)
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:so is it ok.. (Score:3, Interesting)