Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Mozilla The Internet Debian

Firefox Faces Trademark Issues 429

Posted by CowboyNeal from the all-in-a-name dept.
daria42 writes "The Debian development community is currently hotly debating whether the Mozilla Foundation's strict trademarks policy violates Debian's social contract. However, in a twist, it appears Mozilla has not received approval for the Firefox trademarks yet, and the Firefox name may already be taken in the UK and Germany. The foundation has not applied for the Thunderbird trademark anywhere yet."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Firefox Faces Trademark Issues More

Firefox Faces Trademark Issues

Comments Filter:
  • So I wonder what new name they'll pick now...

  • Why? (Score:2, Offtopic)

    by turtled ( 845180 )
    Why does something open source / free have to always be about money? I have never heard the term Firefox before the Firefox browser (not saying something of Firefox didn't exist).

    Also, why does it take over a year or so to come about?

    • Re:Why? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Jeff DeMaagd ( 2015 )
      Given the issues over the naming, I am surprised that they aren't more thoughrough with their checks.

      • Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)

        by starwed ( 735423 ) on Friday June 17, 2005 @04:36AM (#12839828)

        What you shouldn't be surprised about anymore is alarmist stories in the media.

        In fact, they were pretty thorough. When mozilla.org announced the name change, the trademark holder in the UK was mentioned; also mentioned was the deal negotiated with that trademark holder. Oddly enough, the article doesn't contain that last bit of information. Not inflammatory enough, I guess. ^_^

        Gervase Markham has a response [mozillazine.org] up on his blog that should probably be read if you find this story interesting.

    • It's not about that. It's about placing restrictions on distributing modifications. With a trademark in place they have to sue you if you release something called Firefox even if it was derived from Firefox. You can call it shoebox and be fine, but they are exploring if restricting what you can call it is too much for debian's lofty ideals.

    • Clint Eastwood! (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Boss Sauce ( 655550 )
      ...I have never heard the term Firefox before the Firefox browse...

      I liked this [imdb.com] when I was 12-- HBO used to show it all the time:
      "A pilot is sent into the Soviet Union on a mission to steal a prototype jet fighter that can be partially controlled by a neuralink."

      1984-- a very good year-- Macintosh [uriah.com] first appeared, Firefox on HBO, and Airwolf [tv.com] on CBS. Best... tv show theme... ever. [80snostalgia.com]

  • Firesomething (Score:5, Funny)

    by kalleguld ( 624992 ) on Thursday June 16, 2005 @11:55PM (#12838892)
    Good thing I installed that plugin, almost makes the browser change name less often.

    • MOD PARENT UP (Score:2, Informative)

      by Spy der Mann ( 805235 )
      Ok now the mods are definitely on pot. Firesomething was a plugin created (as a joke) after the Firebird -> Firefox name change. It allows you to pick up weird names like firegoat, waterbird, etc.
  • Well, at least they didn't name it Mad Dog 20/20. Everyone would recognize that as a straight ripoff of a name.

  • Firefox tm policy and Debian tm policy v. similar (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Chuck Chunder ( 21021 ) on Thursday June 16, 2005 @11:58PM (#12838905) Journal
    As far as I can see the Firefox trademark policy isn't fundamentally different from Debian's own trademark policy.

    If you are distributing what Debian distribute you can call it Debian. If you want to do something different, call it something else.

    Isn't that essentially what the Firefox trademark policy says?

    • In other news...

      The Debian development community is currently hotly debating whether the Debian Project's strict trademarks policy violates Debian's social contract.

      Oh, boy! I can't wait to see how this one turns out!

    • As far as I can see the Firefox trademark policy isn't fundamentally different from Debian's own trademark policy.

      It might very well be the case that if Debian were to be included recursively in itself, perhaps with some minor modifications and updates, there would be a similar conflict. They sidestep this issue since they don't have to make the whole distribution available on the same terms that included software is, at least as far as trademarks are concerned.

    • Similar (Score:2, Informative)

      by dbcad7 ( 771464 )
      The situations you describe are similar, however it is possible to create different variations of installers to install debian packages, and you would still be distributing a debian system, even if one version of your installer was installing KDE and another Gnome

      From what I gather, the whole issue that the debain people have with the firefox trademark, is that if you change firefox with a bug-fix the license implies you have to rename it.. Debian was granted permission to do this and still use the firefo

    • > If you are distributing what Debian distribute you can call it Debian. If you want to do something different, call it something else.

      Actually no. If you publish the original Debian, it's an "official release" and you can use the Debian swirl logo together with the "magic lamp". If you make a derived version, it's a "vendor release". You can still use the swirl, but without the "magic lamp".
      http://www.debian.org/logos/ [debian.org]
      http://www.debian.org/CD/vendors/ [debian.org]
      Please note that on both logos you can use the w
  • FireBird oops that won't work. Ok Foxbird and ThunderFire anyone?

  • This is going to happen again. (Score:5, Funny)

    by merdaccia ( 695940 ) on Thursday June 16, 2005 @11:59PM (#12838922)
    Why do I have the sinking feeling that we're all going to be sitting here in ten years time, reading about the Godzilla Foundation dispute over ScorchedBadger and LightningParakeet?

  • I really dislike these source-less zdnet articles (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 17, 2005 @12:02AM (#12838937)
    So I'm interested in reading the actual discussions on the debian mailinglists - because I have this strange quirk where I actually find them interesting.
    So, google site:lists.debian.org firefox trademark - nothing since february, all of which has long since been resolved. So much for "recently criticised".

    Could we please just stop linking to zdnet/cnet/... articles here on /. ? They're worse than useless.

  • May I suggest... (Score:5, Funny)

    by AnObfuscator ( 812343 ) <onering AT phys DOT ufl DOT edu> on Friday June 17, 2005 @12:06AM (#12838950) Homepage

    ... a Leonardo Da Quirm replacement name:
    Super-fast-and-cross-platform-and-expandable-free- web-browser.

    I think that just rolls off the tongue, don't you?


  • Rename your browser a few times just to keep the general public too confused to ever really adopt it. If that looks like it's not going to completely do the trick then make a point of choosing some of the stupidest names for the program that you can possibly find.

    Firefox is literally too good to have this stuff keep happening to it. This is what I call a damn shame.
  • Debian wants to exert an interesting amount of control over what they package. That's fine. In my opinion, it's a bit control-freaky, but that's their thing, and they're welcome to it. They're allowed.

    Mozilla gives away products. It also gives away the source for those products. It doesn't mind people making alterations to it's products. It just wants you to not call it the same thing.

    That's not such a bad thing.

    I wouldn't want to install Debian, only to find out that the version of "Firefox" is installe
    • That's fine. In my opinion, it's a bit control-freaky, but that's their thing, and they're welcome to it. They're allowed.

      It's called integration and QA. Debian developers put a lot of time into making their packages work well with the rest of their system and a lot of times this requires changes to the upstream source. For instance, the Debian XF4.3 package in sid currently has almost 200 patches applied to it. It's a good thing, it's what makes Debian feel like a complete system and not just a mish-mash

    • Greedo shot first. Didn't we learn our lesson about messing with previous releases?
      I think what we learnt was that not all patches make things better.
  • And that a mark can also be defined by use. Has anyone ever heard of a "Firefox" in those two countries, that is even computer-related? What is the time limitation on trademark disputes in those two jurisdictions?

  • Just saw an article [lemonde.fr] on Le Monde (in French) saying that FF now accounts for 14% of internet traffic in Europe overall, with anything from 7% (Lithuania) to 30% (Finland) in individual countries. It seems kind of amazing to me that in Germany it has achieved 24%. Is this the fastest new product acceptance in history? (Chime in if you can think of a faster /bigger one).

    The trouble with so much success is that people are going to come out the woodwork claiming trademark issues. And I can only wonder what

    • Fishing line (Score:3, Interesting)

      by XanC ( 644172 )
      I read somewhere (Invention & Technology, maybe?) that nylon fishing line was the fastest adopted technology.

      Cotton needed frequent replacement, and nylon was cheaper than cotton (and didn't wear out). Next time you needed new line, you bought nylon.

    • "The trouble with so much success is that people are going to come out the woodwork claiming trademark issues. And I can only wonder what will happen when it reaches 50%..."

      And they're going to try and get their grubby little hands on all this money free software is makeing.

      wait.....

  • What about the GFDL? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jesterzog ( 189797 ) on Friday June 17, 2005 @12:41AM (#12839097) Journal

    A few weeks ago, I installed the autoconf package on my Debian system, only to discover that there was no documentation included in the standard /usr/share/doc/autoconf/ location. After checking, I discovered that it'd be recently removed, because Debian considers the GNU Free Documentation Licence -- the main documentation licence promoted by the FSF -- as a non-free licence. (Debian has concerns about how it'd work in DRM environments. The Free Software Foundation doesn't agree.)

    Luckily in that case, there's now an autoconf-doc package in the non-free section of Debian, and I installed that. What confuses me, though, is how Debian expects to cope in the future if it doesn't accept something as the GFDL, which is widely accepted as the Free Software Foundation's GPL-for-documentation, and used in a lot of places related to open source. All of the KDE help files, for instance, are distributed under the GFDL. Debian hasn't cut them yet, but does this mean that it won't be including them as soon as someone realises?

    I really like Debian and I have no plans to stop using it unless it stops being possible to do what I want. I'm impressed by the project's dedication to being so specific about licences, but sometimes I wonder how much of that will eventually come back to haunt it.

    • Re:What about the GFDL? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Phexro ( 9814 ) on Friday June 17, 2005 @01:16AM (#12839221)
      Debian is definitely pedantic about licenses, but I think that's better than having license issues come back to haunt them in the form of a lawsuit.
      • Debian is definitely pedantic about licenses, but I think that's better than having license issues come back to haunt them in the form of a lawsuit.

        Debian's decision to distribute something is usually not a legal decision. Some developers fear that documentation licensed under the GNU FDL (even with no invariant sections) compromises the free software ideals Debian subscribes to. This is the public justification, the real reason is likely some desire to inflict harm on the FSF, Richard M. Stallman, Debi
    • All of the KDE help files, for instance, are distributed under the GFDL. Debian hasn't cut them yet, but does this mean that it won't be including them as soon as someone realises?

      Yes, I would assume that they'll go into non-free in an upcoming major release.

      I'm impressed by the project's dedication to being so specific about licences, but sometimes I wonder how much of that will eventually come back to haunt it.

      The opposite is more important. Having Debian not get into a bad position because they'r

    • In Debian's favor, the GFDL really is a crap piece of licensing. It allows you to keep parts of the document proprietary, an act that would have RMS suffering from conniption fits if it were done with software. Unfortunately, the FSF has done a good job of proselytizing the license, so that most people use it out of a knee jerk reaction, instead of actually examing the license for suitability.

      Against Debian, however, is their anal approach to licenses. They are not about freedom, they are a support group f
  • Does anyone remember the FireFox film staring Clint Eastwood where his character is a US Air Force test pilot who is on a mission to steal a prototype Russian jet-fighter.

    FireFox and FireFox Down are two books by Craig Thomas of which the film is based upon the first book. Both fun to read - I'd reccomend it if you liked the old cold-war inspired novels, although the 2nd book was written after cracks started appearing in the Iron Curtain.

  • Approved in the US, will register shortly (Score:5, Informative)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Friday June 17, 2005 @12:53AM (#12839138) Homepage
    The US registration status for Firefox [uspto.gov] is "The final review before registration has been completed for this Intent to Use application and it will register in due course."

    The Firefox trademark was allowed for registration on 2005-04-15. It's currently in the "publication and issue section", where they print up the nice certificate with the seal and ribbon and send it to the Mozilla Foundation, print the notice in the Official Gazette of the United States Patent and Trademark Office and send it to all Depositary Libraries, "enter the trademark upon the Principal Register", and do all that 19th century stuff.

    But it's been a done deal since April.

  • MD5 (Score:2, Funny)

    by RickPartin ( 892479 )
    I have the ultimate solution to all of our trademark issues. Simply use MD5 hashes instead of the original names. d6a5c9544eca9b5ce2266d1c34a93222 is catchier than Firefox anyways.

    • Re:MD5 (Score:2, Interesting)

      by eclectro ( 227083 )
      I have the ultimate solution to all of our trademark issues. Simply use MD5 hashes instead of the original names. d6a5c9544eca9b5ce2266d1c34a93222 is catchier than Firefox anyways.

      Alternatively, they could go with this catchy number: 13B10\/\/5C|-||_|N!<Z
  • The probably should distribute Firefox with Firesomething extension enabled...
  • I doubt they've been taken.
  • Maybe Debian could rename their Firefox to MPL/GPL/LGPL/Firefox.

  • Debian Free Software Guidelines (Score:5, Informative)

    by Chuck Chunder ( 21021 ) on Friday June 17, 2005 @01:43AM (#12839316) Journal
    State, in part [debian.org]:
    4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code

    The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form _only_ if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code. The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software. (This is a compromise. The Debian group encourages all authors not to restrict any files, source or binary, from being modified.)
    Emphasis mine. It seems to me that the "issue" here has already been pretty much covered. The intent seems clear. Although it's not considered ideal Debian seems to have accepted that authors may want derived works to carry different identifiers of one sort or another.

    Maybe it's just a pity it doesn't say:

    The license may require derived works to carry different name, version numbers and/or trademarks from the original software.

  • Trademark in the UK (Score:3, Informative)

    by squoozer ( 730327 ) on Friday June 17, 2005 @02:06AM (#12839381)

    Has anyone actually bottered to check the PTO in the UK before going off on one about how Firefox is already registered?

    If you go over there [patent.gov.uk] and have a little look you will notice that the mozilla foundation has filed their trademark application and none of the other firefox applications directly conflict with it. There are others in class 9 but none of them specifically list web browser (which the firefox applicaiton does) as part of the application. The biggest threat, IMHO, is 2007607 which bangs on about software but from an analysis point of view. IANAL but I would say that firefox will probably be granted the trademark in the UK at least.

  • And make Angelina Jolie [imdb.com] to be its official face.

  • Dammit, where is FireSomething [cosmicat.com] when we need it! It needs to be updated to be compatible with newer versions of Firefox/Lightningnarwhal/...

    My favourite Firesomething name was Mozilla Superkoala, I'll vote for that.

  • Debian Gets What They Give (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Debian is trademarked. You can take Debian, mess with the code and then distribute it, but you CAN NOT call it Debian.

    Firefox is trademarked. You can take Firefox, mess with the code and then distribute it, but you CAN NOT call it Firefox.

    If Debian doesn't like being on the receiving end of this, maybe they should change THEIR OWN trademark policy.

  • tm in Germany (Score:3, Informative)

    by dtietze ( 708094 ) on Friday June 17, 2005 @02:38AM (#12839478) Homepage
    Apparently it's been registered in Germany since 1995! "Firefox" as a trademark for use in computer software, computer consulting, etc. (trademark group 42 in the German trademark system) has been registered in 1995 to "Firefox Communications Limited, Solihull, GB". Presumably these are the same folks holding the trademark in GB.
    A short research in the publically searchable database of the German national patent and trademark registry (http://dpinfo.dpma.de/ [dpinfo.dpma.de] would have shown that.
    Since they trademarks have been registered in 1995, I find it highly unlikely (but not infinitely improbable) that they were registered in order to "cash in" on the Firefox browser popularity.
    Mind you, "Firefox" has also been registered by Volkswagen in 2005. So watch out for the new VW Beetle Firefox (with tabbed driver's seat) at a car dealership near you :-))
    Dan.

  • The Real Situation (Score:5, Informative)

    by Gerv ( 15179 ) <gerv&gerv,net> on Friday June 17, 2005 @04:03AM (#12839749) Homepage
    I'm the person at the MoFo responsible for the trademark discussion with Debian. Please read my blog post [mozillazine.org] on the subject to get the correct story.

  • Thunderbird (Score:3, Informative)

    by Goth Biker Babe ( 311502 ) on Friday June 17, 2005 @04:41AM (#12839840) Homepage Journal
    Is owned by Triumph Motorcycles [motorcycle-usa.com] both here and in the states. It's licenced to Ford (?) for use on automobiles.

    • Re:Thunderbird (Score:3, Informative)

      by tomstdenis ( 446163 )
      You can have multiple users of words like that so long as they don't compete [hint: Apple ... before itunes].

      That and I don't see why they care. Spend more time developing and less time lawyering.

      Tom

Slashdot Top Deals

If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law. -- Roy Santoro

Close