Open Source goes Commercial?

Lost User 15175 · Post by **Lost User 15175** » February 10th, 2004, 2:57 am

The fact remains is this; A company must actively protect their trademark or the trademark is void.

If Mozilla Foundation allowed everybody to use their trademark everywhere, there will be no way to protect it in the event somebody tried to file lilligations (again) against them.

For the one that wants buttons, they provide buttons you can use on their webpage. Maybe they can provide some generic hi-rez ones, much like Apple and other companies do, so that you can create your own style work.

I don't like the fact I'll have to use the old artwork for now in m y optimized builds, but I understand the reasons for it. As lons as the user build items are as nice looking as the current icons, I'm happy with that (Maybe make the fox blue? as in a blue flame? Might conflict with the world color though).

bengoodger · Post by **bengoodger** » February 10th, 2004, 3:20 am

TheOneKEA wrote:
Christopher wrote:Hmm.. So all in a sudden there is no Firefox for other platforms than the offical ones? Now, let's find another name. Firefox open source branding name : Firewolf.

You misunderstand Mozilla.org's intentions.

So far, from my perspective they have NOT said that anyone who checks out the CVS code from the Mozilla trunk, builds Firefox and makes it available for download can't call it Firefox. What they CANNOT do, without explicit permission from Mozilla.org ($$$?) is include the Firefox artwork, which is NOT open-source. Ben has already said that open-source artwork will appear in the CVS tree soon so that trunk builds are visibly of Firefox lineage, but not identical to official builds.

Also, I believe we would probably come up with a scheme so that contributed builds that we distribute from our website (and thus at least partially endorsing) could use the artwork. Don't quote me on the details, they've yet to be worked out.

Anyone who has a problem with this would be well advised to read Bart's post with a level head and an open mind. I don't think we're doing anything out of the ordinary or unusual here (especially given the nature of the existing Mozilla lizard logos, which I've already stated are Mozilla.org trademarks and are and have always been subject to the same restrictions - why do you think such imagery is kept to a minimum in the Mozilla Suite etc?).

TheOneKEA · Post by **TheOneKEA** » February 10th, 2004, 3:24 am

Hey, I agree with you Ben - I think Bart's post needs to be plastered all over this forum so that it can be endlessly referenced to each person who disagrees with the status quo.

EDIT: caught the ninja

Is there an ETA on when the OSS artwork will be checked into the trunk? And will the exact status of the OSS artowkr also be made clear in time?

bengoodger · Post by **bengoodger** » February 10th, 2004, 3:42 am

TheOneKEA wrote:Hey, I agree with you Ben - I think Bart's post needs to be plastered all over this forum so that it can be endlessly referenced to each person who disagrees with the status quo.

EDIT: caught the ninja

Is there an ETA on when the OSS artwork will be checked into the trunk? And will the exact status of the OSS artowkr also be made clear in time?

Oh yeah, I wasn't arguing with you, just augmenting ;-)

I've added a permanent link to bart's post to the top of my blog, for what it's worth. I think it's worth getting a highlights package put together from this thread with some of the hows and whys and put on mozilla.org until we get more formal documentation.

. · Post by . » February 10th, 2004, 3:47 am

I agree with what Mozilla.org is trying to do - they want to ensure the quality - a way for people to know it's the official builds. But with this it's no point building optimised builds for myself anymore cause they wont look cool like the real ones (icons). Is anyone allowed to just take the icon from official builds and use it on their computer on a custom build?

Spewey · Post by **Spewey** » February 10th, 2004, 3:47 am

Hey, no fair. Pick a thread where I'm not being a jerk!

gdeka · Post by **gdeka** » February 10th, 2004, 4:33 am

Thats fair, i agree with the mozilla.org viewpoint
but what about builds that are made for different OS's and distributed through the OS's package resource. Such as debian, gentoo ...
These are basically the same as the mozilla.org builds but much easier to install, and of course those tiny little things such as shortcuts on the menu.
Can these use the trademarked images or not ?

naylor83 · Post by **naylor83** » February 10th, 2004, 5:12 am

So does this mean I wouldn't be allowed to pack the Firefox logo into my theme, so as to make the About window look as it should? (i.e. as it does with Qute.)

esavior · Post by **esavior** » February 10th, 2004, 5:13 am

bengoodger wrote:
oSiRiS_Brad wrote:The only thing this artwork nonsense does is frustrate ME, because I have a black background on my website and want to make MY OWN button. But the logo is CLOSED SOURCE.

If you want to do that, I don't think you're prevented from doing so, just like if you were to create a page talking about how you loved Red Hat Linux with the Red Hat on a different background, Red Hat would probably not sue you. Again, IANAL. I've asked Mitchell Baker to comment some more on this issue.

I am kind of confused. So I am allowed to make my own buttons to promote Firefox based on the firefox artwork artwork without begging for express permission from the Mozilla team? If this is the case, maybe it would be helpful to make a list on things that are pre approved uses of the images.

Robin_reala · Post by **Robin_reala** » February 10th, 2004, 6:20 am

Ban: could you do something like pastering a big unofficial build over the standard art and including that in CVS?

Otherwise, a little red panda photo or something equivalent would be better than the remnants of the bird.

TheOneKEA · Post by **TheOneKEA** » February 10th, 2004, 6:25 am

esavior wrote:
bengoodger wrote:
oSiRiS_Brad wrote:The only thing this artwork nonsense does is frustrate ME, because I have a black background on my website and want to make MY OWN button. But the logo is CLOSED SOURCE.

If you want to do that, I don't think you're prevented from doing so, just like if you were to create a page talking about how you loved Red Hat Linux with the Red Hat on a different background, Red Hat would probably not sue you. Again, IANAL. I've asked Mitchell Baker to comment some more on this issue.

I am kind of confused. So I am allowed to make my own buttons to promote Firefox based on the firefox artwork artwork without begging for express permission from the Mozilla team? If this is the case, maybe it would be helpful to make a list on things that are pre approved uses of the images.

Indeed. Ben, Bart and everyone else at Mozilla.org need to publish a set of guidelines on the EXACT provisions of the artwork, both in the official builds (and soon to be) in the CVS tree. These types of questions will continue to pop up until we are made aware of exactly what artwork, branding and naming we can and cannot use in unofficial Mozilla builds. Otherwise it's just going to be a huge mess that will probably culminate in the cessation of unofficial building.

AkiAki007 · Post by **AkiAki007** » February 10th, 2004, 6:36 am

Thumper wrote:People don't compile Red Hat Linux or Windows themselves.

Yes they do. Well, even Windows but that's for developers. But Red Hat. You are more than welcome to compile it. I compiled Gentoo on my computer. Yes, every last bit of it. Including GCC. What do you think Linux is? That was a silly statement.

Thumber wrote:This decision is ridiculous. I assume the Mozilla Foundation is going to start going after the ISPs of anyone who includes the artwork in unofficial builds then?

Everyone is getting so pissed off about this when it makes no sense to me at all. So, they want to protect their image. What is wrong with that? Which other organization doesn't want to protect their image. Every non-profit organization (WWF, Greenwich House (music and pottery), Salvation Army ) all protect their image. Why is this any different? The sole purpose of this organization is to produce Mozilla and it's family of products. They want everyone to know who they are. If Joe Shmoe comes along and also claims to be The Mozilla Foundation, how is Uninformed User supposed to tell the difference?

I don't understand how so many people don't see this and are getting all pissy about image being "trademarked." Well, at least there won't be any more name changes. People need to stop crying about little things that are perfectly logical. This post applies to all that posted in this thread.

Ben and the rest of the team, good job. The name is fine. The images look good. The product is great. Though I have to say the icon (when small) looks like a fetus, but that's hardly a problem.

Thumper's Evil Twin · February 10th, 2004, 6:50 am

It means the official builds aren't truly Free. Firefox is now a proprietary binary with limited rights granted to its use. This is a fairly hefty deal for some.

- Chris

ktoosh · Post by **ktoosh** » February 10th, 2004, 7:01 am

Thumper wrote:It means the official builds aren't truly Free. Firefox is now a proprietary binary with limited rights granted to its use. This is a fairly hefty deal for some.

- Chris

How can you say it's not free? Do you have to pay anything to get Firefox? I don't think so. Is it free of any restriction on it's use? no, but neither is any other GPL/NPL/MPL or other open-source program. Are you saying that OSS has to be free of any restriction whatsoever? That is just ludicrous. If that were the case, what could you do if you published a piece of software, I came along and changed your name to mine and republished. Nothing.

Simply saying that OSS must be free of any restrictions on use is not acceptable.

Kevin

esavior · Post by **esavior** » February 10th, 2004, 7:06 am

ktoosh wrote:
Thumper wrote:It means the official builds aren't truly Free. Firefox is now a proprietary binary with limited rights granted to its use. This is a fairly hefty deal for some.

- Chris
How can you say it's not free? Do you have to pay anything to get Firefox? I don't think so. Is it free of any restriction on it's use? no, but neither is any other GPL/NPL/MPL or other open-source program. Are you saying that OSS has to be free of any restriction whatsoever? That is just ludicrous. If that were the case, what could you do if you published a piece of software, I came along and changed your name to mine and republished. Nothing.

Simply saying that OSS must be free of any restrictions on use is not acceptable.

Kevin

Actually, acording to this article on Linux in wired magazine you can do exactly that,
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.1 ... topic_set=

"His hold over Linux is based more on loyalty than legalities. He owns the rights to the name and nothing else. Theoretically, someone could appropriate every last line of his OS and rename it Sally. "I can't afford to make too many stupid mistakes," Torvalds says, "because then people watching will say, hey, maybe we can find someone better. I don't have any authority over Linux other than this notion that I know what I'm doing." He jokingly refers to himself as "Linux's hood ornament," and he's anything but an autocrat. His power is based on nothing more than the collective respect of his cohorts."