MozillaZine


Mozilla Firefox artwork in third party builds

Discussion about official Mozilla Firefox builds
scragz

User avatar
 
Posts: 2914
Joined: February 8th, 2003, 2:38 am
Location: San Diego, US

Post Posted February 10th, 2004, 2:38 am

bengoodger wrote:Some of you may have noticed that the new Firefox artwork (icons, about box graphics etc) have not been checked into cvs.mozilla.org.

The new logos, like the name, are trademarks of The Mozilla Foundation. In addition, this new artwork is not licensed under the same licenses as the source code. From the license panel of the Windows installer:

"You are not granted any rights or licenses to the trademarks of the
Mozilla Foundation or any party, including without limitation the
Firefox name or logo."

From what I understand, this does not preclude you from using Firefox artwork if you wish to link to mozilla.org, we're just trying to prevent people from identify themselves AS us, or create builds that masquerade as official builds.

The Mozilla Foundation will be using this new iconography to differentiate official builds from third party ones, so that end users always know that they are using a bona fide Mozilla build when they see the Firefox logo. As a result, permission to use these graphics in custom builds is explicitly NOT granted automatically. Please contact staff@mozilla.org if you have questions.

(emphasis added)

I already have to fill out the Mozilla Trademark License Agreement for my website, do you think that will allow me to use the artwork in my builds? It seems kind of harsh if they're going to leave everyone else with a pointless bird graphic and icon; maybe they could make inferior fox imagery or something that's not a bird for the third party builders who thought they were doing a service to The Mozilla Foundation and the community.

Discuss.

Dougieha
 
Posts: 203
Joined: April 25th, 2003, 4:20 pm

Post Posted February 10th, 2004, 2:45 am

See bartd's post here and my reply, and ben's reply in this thread: http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic ... 523#366523

Dougieha wrote:
bartd wrote:So if you're a forum members, and you build an optimized version of Mozilla for some specific set of users, that's great, and that's not a Mozilla release and it probably shouldn't bear our trademarked logo because that confuses the user as to where it came from.

Now, there's something else we can and should do: we should make sure that our CVS repository includes artworked that's not protected by us that people can use and modify and do with whatever they want, like the blue flame logo. That way if you see the blue flame icon you know "ah, that's a community build of Mozilla, not an official release by the Mozilla Foundaton."


I agree with the general idea of what the whole trademarked logo/icon thing is trying to accomplish in principle, but I also believe that there then needs to be some sort of variant of the new logo in CVS that somehow represents that if a user builds a version of Fx, that that build is still Fx, just built by a non-official process.

What is there right now is simply the old flame/bird icon, which seems to have nothing to do with the name Firefox, and is very misleading for many users who build/download optimized builds from the builds forum. They don't understand if what they've downloaded is Fx, an old Firebird, etc. With all of the new branding splashed all over the mozilla.org pages, it is hard to understand why a user who pulls the tree and then builds it doesn't end up with the same branding as is associated with Fx.

So, in essence, I think that it would be really cool if there was some way to create a logo that somehow represents that a non-official build is still Firefox, just not an official mozilla.org build of Firefox. This branding should go into CVS, so anyone who grabs the source and builds can see that the end result is Firefox.

For example, some sort of color variant, or markable difference in the icon/branding that could be explained on the official Firefox pages to differentiate between official builds and non-official builds, but still recognizable as Fx. Of course, this would probably be a little more work, but I think it would make everyone happier in the long run. Many of the people who build daily optimized versions of Fx are also the ones who find many of the new bugs, and they (and I) feel kind of disappointed that the builds that we will be making won't have the cool new icons/branding, even though they are still Fx.

I hope that makes sense.

Dougieha

sboulema
 
Posts: 6615
Joined: May 20th, 2003, 12:34 am
Location: Amstelveen, The Netherlands

Post Posted February 10th, 2004, 2:46 am

allot has changed since yesterday :p i really dont mind the different graphics, just as long firefox is doing its job. but there were talks bout different fox artwork for the custom builds.

scragz

User avatar
 
Posts: 2914
Joined: February 8th, 2003, 2:38 am
Location: San Diego, US

Post Posted February 10th, 2004, 2:54 am

Dougieha wrote:See bartd's post here and my reply, and ben's reply in this thread: http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic ... 523#366523

Geez, between the release and the change, there were just so many threads I couldn't find that (poorly titled) one. The message that I quoted was kind of vague and almost lead me to believe that they might be allowing use of the imagery; that one said it a lot better.

I hope this means that I can finally change the icon and about.png to something else without people freaking out. about.png isn't so much an issue, I already have some cool graphics to go in there, but does anyone yet know of a decent public domain or freely licensed fox image to make a decent icon with?

Off-topic but also important: What's the standard abbreviation? Today I've seen 'FF', 'MF', and 'FX'. I happen to like FX since it doesn't make me think of the Fantastic Four or a swear word, and kind of reminds me of Phoenix.

Dougieha
 
Posts: 203
Joined: April 25th, 2003, 4:20 pm

Post Posted February 10th, 2004, 2:57 am

Good question. I'd still like to see what the Fx developers/branding people could come up with in terms of a Fx "non-official build" icon that somehow relates back to the official icon but somehow represents that it is a non-official build. Ben said in that thread that it was a possibility, so it'd be cool if that would happen and then we could have unity between the non-official builds and the official builds, to a certain extent.

Dougieha

sboulema
 
Posts: 6615
Joined: May 20th, 2003, 12:34 am
Location: Amstelveen, The Netherlands

Post Posted February 10th, 2004, 3:01 am

i vote for Fx, FF sounds like final fantasy, FX is a nvidia card

Lost User 15175
 
Posts: 0
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 5:00 pm

Post Posted February 10th, 2004, 3:10 am

FF reminds me of Final Fantasy. FX has been my recent use. Even though it's the nVidia card, it's hadn't been "branded" that way like FF has. FF been used for, what, 15 years now? It's branded. FF=Final Fantasay!

Besides, once nVidia gets a new chip, which won't be lone, they'll drop FX. They already went thru MX, TI, and a few others.

scragz

User avatar
 
Posts: 2914
Joined: February 8th, 2003, 2:38 am
Location: San Diego, US

Post Posted February 10th, 2004, 3:25 am

They don't cover important stuff like if we should use FF or Fx in all that trademark and marketing crap. Fx it is!

old momokatte
 
Posts: 0
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 5:00 pm

Post Posted February 10th, 2004, 3:28 am

I propose that all branding text/graphics in CVS be changed to "Fx" for unofficial builds. There we go! Two issues solved! :mrgreen:

gahbmwM5

User avatar
 
Posts: 1060
Joined: June 21st, 2003, 12:31 pm
Location: USA

Post Posted February 10th, 2004, 4:48 am

Yes agreed..."Fx"
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; rv:2.0b7) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/4.0b7

mr magoo
 
Posts: 69
Joined: January 4th, 2003, 11:13 am

Post Posted February 10th, 2004, 5:55 am

(another) supporter here of the Fx standard! We've been using it for articles on the new browser.
Neowin.net Journalist

Wingi
 
Posts: 41
Joined: September 7th, 2003, 5:13 am

Post Posted February 10th, 2004, 6:15 am

Let's roll for Fx !
Oyo ?

Pitreck

User avatar
 
Posts: 92
Joined: September 2nd, 2003, 5:18 am
Location: Warsaw, Poland

Post Posted February 10th, 2004, 7:06 am

Another vote for Fx...

ehume

User avatar
 
Posts: 6743
Joined: November 17th, 2002, 12:33 pm
Location: Princeton, NJ, USA

Post Posted February 10th, 2004, 7:30 am

Fx has two meaning as medical abbreviations:

Function
Fracture

depending on context.

As for artwork, why try to go with the official Moz? why not use this or a reduced version of it (a firefox is another name for the red panda):

Image
Firefox: Sic transit gloria mundi.

gregoryk
 
Posts: 27
Joined: October 14th, 2003, 3:52 am

Post Posted February 10th, 2004, 7:33 am

scragz wrote:Off-topic but also important: What's the standard abbreviation? Today I've seen 'FF', 'MF', and 'FX'. I happen to like FX since it doesn't make me think of the Fantastic Four or a swear word, and kind of reminds me of Phoenix.


How about MF because the whole image and renaming thing are pretty stupid and MF is the general sentiment I feel about it.

Return to Firefox Builds


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest