Because I almost missed that information myself:
http://www.ofb.biz/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=353
RMS: I had better correct a common confusion. The Firefox binaries distributed by the Mozilla developers, like all their binaries, are not free. To use Firefox as free software, you have to build it yourself from the source code. We're talking with the Mozilla project about cooperating to change this, but in the mean time, we're looking for people who would like to build and release free binaries that we can recommend.
It seems that Firefox binaries are covered by an end user license agreement that might even not allow redistribution and they contain proprietary code for error reporting: Talkback. I do assume that Debian's binary packets will be okay.
what can we do: Tell people about Firefox's problems to help pressuring binary producers to not create such problems and learn to pay attention.
Bernhard
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 07:21:17PM +0200, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
It seems that Firefox binaries are covered by an end user license agreement that might even not allow redistribution and they contain proprietary code for error reporting: Talkback.
They are free to use any license they want. Who cares?!
Tell people about Firefox's problems to help pressuring binary producers to not create such problems and learn to pay attention.
Is this the role of the FSF? To pressure people? I don't see any problems with firefox at all. And it is not the FSF to decide which license is right and which is not.
Freedom also means to let people decide themselfes how they want to do things, not to tell them how they shall do it.
You have to learn a lot.
kind regards, Tom
It seems that Firefox binaries are covered by an end user license agreement that might even not allow redistribution and they contain proprietary code for error reporting: Talkback.
They are free to use any license they want. Who cares?!
Those who care about your freedom care.
Freedom also means to let people decide themselfes how they want to do things, not to tell them how they shall do it.
Freedom doesn't mean the freedom to reject freedom, or subjugate others into giving up their freedom. Non-free software is never a solution.
So yes, this is what the FSF (and others!) should do and has been doing for quite some time, presure people and companies into freeing users.
At Mon, 4 Apr 2005 22:44:15 +0200, Thomas Linden wrote:
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 07:21:17PM +0200, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
It seems that Firefox binaries are covered by an end user license agreement that might even not allow redistribution and they contain proprietary code for error reporting: Talkback.
They are free to use any license they want. Who cares?!
I do. I care about my freedom.
Tell people about Firefox's problems to help pressuring binary producers to not create such problems and learn to pay attention.
Is this the role of the FSF? To pressure people?
Yes it is one the things the FSF should do.
I don't see any problems with firefox at all.
I do see a problem. Namely that my freedom is taken away when I download and use the firefox binary. Even worse, my privacy might also be taken away, since Talkback error reporting tool might send any information without me knowing it.
And it is not the FSF to decide which license is right and which is not.
The FSF can tell them and the world what they think.
Freedom also means to let people decide themselfes how they want to do things, not to tell them how they shall do it.
Freedom also means that you can tell and explain your opinion to other people.
You have to learn a lot.
Who doesn't?
Jeroen Dekkers
Jeroen Dekkers ha scritto:
It seems that Firefox binaries are covered by an end user license agreement that might even not allow redistribution and they contain proprietary code for error reporting: Talkback.
As i know in the Firefox community a discussion was made and all people know about the issue of the "non free binary", this also before the RMS interview.
I follow the italian translation project and i used this thread to stimulate all the people to go in the right way.
I think no other action was necessary, the Mozilla project is not a "clear" free software project, from the closed start, today is better, tomorrow will be free.
:-)
Am Montag, dem 04. Apr 2005 schrieb Bernhard Reiter:
Because I almost missed that information myself:
http://www.ofb.biz/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=353
RMS: I had better correct a common confusion. The Firefox binaries distributed by the Mozilla developers, like all their binaries, are not free.
[...]
It seems that Firefox binaries are covered by an end user license agreement that might even not allow redistribution and they contain proprietary code for error reporting: Talkback.
It is really confusing!
I was alarmed by this article, so I looked up my installation of Firefox on my windows machine and the only license I found there was the MPL 1.1. But the MPL is a free software license. I was very confused.
Then I installed the binary-package again, and... indeed, the installer shows a different license! A license which cannot be found in the installed version anymore. And I had really trouble to find it on the net.
They are really playing hide and seek with their "end"-users!
To make the confusion complete, that license mentions at the very beginning "MOZILLA PUBLIC LICENSE and other open source software licenses." This again creates the false impression, that this is an open source license and an open source product, which it really is not!
You can find the license here: http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/EULA/firefox-en.html
I do assume that Debian's binary packets will be okay.
Yes, they are. They also had trouble with the naming of their binaries, because "Firefox" is a trademark! So they had to explitely label them as "unofficial".
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/02/msg01882.html
I hope that that there will also be other alternative offers for Firefox-binaries and that it becomes clear, that "unofficial" versions are better for the user!
The issue about labeling such binary distributions can be found there: http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/
Am Dienstag, dem 05. Apr 2005 schrieb Andres K. Foerster:
They also had trouble with the naming of their binaries, because "Firefox" is a trademark! So they had to explitely label them as "unofficial".
Sorry, but I think they actually had to use a fully different name: "iceweasel".
I am not really sure about the actual status of their packages.
AKFoerster wrote:
I am not really sure about the actual status of their packages.
I think you'll have to ask the package maintainer to be absolutely sure, but my understanding is that the published Firefox source is not buildable today without extensive patches or a trademark licence. There have been some attempts at finding agreeable terms on the debian-legal list (January and February 2005 most recently, Gervase Markham on the Mozilla Foundation side), promises that Mozilla will fix "white label" builds Real Soon Now and a couple of accusations that debian is being persecuted while groups like Fedora are allowed to infringe, among other things. Read the threads on http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/ for a balanced view.
Also as I understand it, the command names and some package names may remain unchanged because they are functional parts, as long as the description makes it clear that it's not the Mozilla build. This is similar to how "apt-get install ssh" actually got you OpenSSH installed on a debian system. If Mozilla Foundation try to enforce trademarks so that debian users can't find a free software edition by "apt-cache search firefox" then I would expect them to get some user backlash.
On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 13:40 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
and a couple of accusations that debian is being persecuted while groups like Fedora are allowed to infringe, among other things. Read the threads on http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/ for a balanced view.
Where on the debian-legal is an accusation that debian are being persecuted? Are they - in your opinion - being persecuted?
That seems far more serious than the current "problems" with trademarks.
Also as I understand it, the command names and some package names may remain unchanged because they are functional parts, as long as the description makes it clear that it's not the Mozilla build.
I don't know about trademarks, but that's not the case with trade marks. Functionality is irrelevant.
I read the discussion on debian-legal and I'm not sure that a) people understand the complexity of the law, or b) the complexity of Mozilla's specific position. Moz are on a somewhat sticky wicket in this country anyway - as I understand it, they are only able to use the term 'firefox' under licence - and that may also be true elsewhere. They cannot drop the name either, if we're being sensible.
It's possibly a bit unfair to lay the blame for the trade mark issue at Mozilla's door, I feel. If they were having trouble with patents, we would commiserate, and ask that people help them code around the issue. Currently, the Mozilla project has many many hackers less than it needs and it doesn't surprise me that bugs like this (which are really a specific sub-class of more general bugs that distributors encounter) take a while to be fixed.
Going back to the Talkback problem, we should be encouraging Mozilla to fix the problem and help them do it. I know RMS called for a forked packaging effort - I think all parties would be better served if free binaries were available from Mozilla.
Cheers,
Alex.
Alex Hudson wrote:
Where on the debian-legal is an accusation that debian are being persecuted? Are they - in your opinion - being persecuted?
I've pointed towards where I think it is. It's alluded to in http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/02/msg00004.html but maybe I dreamt it or was drunk when reading the original.
I don't know whether debian is being singled out as I can't remember how it started. Most probably, it was some debian user raised it and then a developer raised it with Mozilla. I think the initial complaints were about one of Thundercat or Sunbird which has a more enforced trademark than Firefox.
I think the complaints that debian doesn't act like a company are needless. That shouldn't have been a surprise.
I don't know about trademarks, but that's not the case with trade marks. Functionality is irrelevant.
If the trademark is used in the package description, that's a problem. However, there are other ways than the descriptions to make "apt-get install firefox" install notFirefox. I doubt that either those or /etc/alternatives/firefox would infringe the trademark, being not descriptions of a web browser.
[...] They cannot drop the name either, if we're being sensible.
They can abandon the trademark effort, if they're being sensible.
It's possibly a bit unfair to lay the blame for the trade mark issue at Mozilla's door, I feel. [...]
I think it's fair enough. Quite rightly, Mozilla hasn't put many people behind this effort. The debian package has been announced globally and frequently, often accompanied by a listing of changes that are made to the Mozilla version.
There are more important things for volunteers to work on than attacking other free software projects with over-zealous red tape. By not enforcing their trademarks as harshly previously, having no working trademark-free builds of their software and now trying such a hard line, I feel the Mozilla Foundation (MF) could be pretty close to a "submarine trademark" effect, happy to let distributors think that they are free software, then "you will respec' ma' authorita'" once popular.
I remain hopeful that MF take a more moderate line which formalises their past practice, rather than trying to raise the barrier up to their present written policies. If you know how MF's internals work, please go help convince them.
[...] They cannot drop the name either, if we're being sensible.
They can abandon the trademark effort, if they're being sensible.
I think a better compromise would be if Mozilla allowed free software projects to be exempt from this trademark mess.
By not enforcing their trademarks as harshly previously,
Sadly, this can't be done, since they could loose the trademark in that case. It is either the "my way or the high way" here.
But I think that the compromise I suggest would allow the Mozilla Foundation to keep their trademark, but I'm not a laywer, and my trademark law knowledge is slim.
Cheers.
On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 17:38 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Alex Hudson wrote:
Where on the debian-legal is an accusation that debian are being persecuted? Are they - in your opinion - being persecuted?
I've pointed towards where I think it is. It's alluded to in http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/02/msg00004.html but maybe I dreamt it or was drunk when reading the original.
Hmm, I thought Gerv had said that Debian had approach MoFo, not the other way around. I haven't read the thread in full, though, so in actuality I'm mostly clueless as to how the discussion started.
I think the complaints that debian doesn't act like a company are needless. That shouldn't have been a surprise.
I agree. On the other hand, though, it's difficult for outsiders to figure out how debian does act though - I'm not sure debian developers always recognise that.
I don't know about trademarks, but that's not the case with trade marks. Functionality is irrelevant.
If the trademark is used in the package description, that's a problem. However, there are other ways than the descriptions to make "apt-get install firefox" install notFirefox. I doubt that either those or /etc/alternatives/firefox would infringe the trademark, being not descriptions of a web browser.
That trade mark (FIREFOX) isn't a trade mark on a web browser, so I don't see how your point stands - I think you're confused with tort law on passing-off, which is different. You still seem to be talking about the US situation, too.
"There may be a likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 4(1)(b) of Directive 89/104 even where the public perception is that the goods or services have different places of production." (C-39/97, "Canon"; 1995s Puma is also worth looking at).
As an example of the rights trade mark owners enjoy, General Motors was able to take out an injunction against Yplon/McBride for selling detergents, even though GM's "CHEVY" mark was only registered for motor cars. Against that standard, I think installing !firefox when the user asks for firefox is likely to look like confusion - it's like getting a box with "Dyson" on the outside but containing a hoover. But hey, it's better than the Benelux "mere association" test, huh? :)
This is probably irrelevant discussion to the topic at hand, however.
[...] They cannot drop the name either, if we're being sensible.
They can abandon the trademark effort, if they're being sensible.
As I already noted; no, they can't - at least, not in the UK - as far as firefox is concerned. They are licencees.
There are more important things for volunteers to work on than attacking other free software projects with over-zealous red tape. By not enforcing their trademarks as harshly previously, having no working trademark-free builds of their software and now trying such a hard line, I feel the Mozilla Foundation (MF) could be pretty close to a "submarine trademark" effect, happy to let distributors think that they are free software, then "you will respec' ma' authorita'" once popular.
The alternative is that they're being forced to take this much more seriously, and spend much more time on this problem.
The only way for them to retreat from this situation would be to choose a name different to 'firefox' themselves. They've already twice had to do that and still haven't solved the problem they were trying to solve; I think that shows just how hard a problem it is :(
I'm not attempting to defend their position; but I think much of their behaviour is defensible and we should be trying to work with them to improve their position (if the alternative is to try to get people to boycott them). I think people get the impression Mozilla is a much bigger project than it actually is.
Cheers,
Alex.
Alex Hudson wrote:
Hmm, I thought Gerv had said that Debian had approach MoFo, not the other way around. [...]
Gerv was noticed once describing a New Maintainer applicant as debian's view and it's not easy to trace this back to initial contact, as I don't think Gerv was the original Mozilla replier.
I agree. On the other hand, though, it's difficult for outsiders to figure out how debian does act though - I'm not sure debian developers always recognise that. [...]
It's difficult for debian developers to figure out how debian does act, but sadly people assume instead of asking questions (and I have been guilty of that many times), while others either don't answer questions or give half-answers which are misunderstood.
That trade mark (FIREFOX) isn't a trade mark on a web browser, so I don't see how your point stands - I think you're confused with tort law on passing-off, which is different. You still seem to be talking about the US situation, too. [...]
I can't remember exactly what it's a trademark for, but I'm pretty sure it's not a trademark for a filename.
Sadly, US law is the main concern for debian on this one, as both Mozilla Foundation and debian's holding corporation (Software in the Public Interest, Inc) are US-based. Maybe if Debian-UKSoc gets unbroken and gathers large assets, we'd want to worry about being mugged in the UK, but I'm not as worried yet (unless there are UK-based debian moz packagers...).
As I already noted; no, they can't - at least, not in the UK - as far as firefox is concerned. They are licencees.
Who do they license from? Who do we LART to get them to stop enforcing the trademark against free software distributors?
Even so, all remember, Mozilla is far better than Netscape, for us.
On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 23:51 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
That trade mark (FIREFOX) isn't a trade mark on a web browser, so I don't see how your point stands - I think you're confused with tort law on passing-off, which is different. You still seem to be talking about the US situation, too. [...]
I can't remember exactly what it's a trademark for, but I'm pretty sure it's not a trademark for a filename.
That's completely irrelevant. There isn't any such thing as a 'trademark for a filename' - you seem to be saying that trademarks apply to objects. Trademarks identify the *source* of the goods; they're applied to things to mark their origin.
I will probably write a basic primer on trademarks at some point, because even though I'm not terribly conversant with US law I do at least know how they function. I seem to keep having this same conversation with people.... :/
Sadly, US law is the main concern for debian on this one, as both Mozilla Foundation and debian's holding corporation (Software in the Public Interest, Inc) are US-based.
Again, that's not relevant either. The law applicable is that of the country of distribution; US law doesn't get exported everywhere just because someone happens to have their HQ over there.
MoFo at least are taking an interest in all areas; they wouldn't have licenced the firefox mark otherwise. I would encourage Debian not to be complacent either. The danger isn't financial per se - Debian couldn't be sued without doing something seriously negligent - but it would be quite easy to get distribution of Debian stopped in the UK by taking out an injunction.
As I already noted; no, they can't - at least, not in the UK - as far as firefox is concerned. They are licencees.
Who do they license from?
According to "About Mozilla Firefox", "Some trademark (sic) rights used under licence from The Charlton Company". They are talking about a UK trademark application from '95, which has priority in this country.
Who do we LART to get them to stop enforcing the trademark against free software distributors?
The Charlton Company would be the ones enforcing the UK mark, you would need to contact them. I would suggest that is a thoroughly bad idea, however.
Even so, all remember, Mozilla is far better than Netscape, for us.
I think you've hit the nail exactly on the head. It's clear that there are problems here, but the best way forward is to solve them by working with Mozilla. Forking - especially a complex piece of software like Mozilla - should be last resort.
Cheers,
Alex.
Alex Hudson wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
I can't remember exactly what it's a trademark for, but I'm pretty sure it's not a trademark for a filename.
That's completely irrelevant. There isn't any such thing as a 'trademark for a filename' - you seem to be saying that trademarks apply to objects. Trademarks identify the *source* of the goods; they're applied to things to mark their origin.
Indeed. Filenames do not "identify the source of the goods" - they are just a convenient mutable label for program or storage files. Whatever else, the more extreme claims in discussions about needing to change filenames which let you execute "firefox" or "apt-get install mozilla-firefox" are not directly trademarky.
Really, I was hoping that you would agree that there is an upper limit to the trademark problems. You seem to be asserting that any use of the word firefox in any context requires the trademark holder's permission. Do I understand that correctly?
I will probably write a basic primer on trademarks at some point, because even though I'm not terribly conversant with US law I do at least know how they function. I seem to keep having this same conversation with people.... :/
Please don't. If you understand them (which seems doubtful), then repeated conversations should suggest that you are not good at communicating it.
Sadly, US law is the main concern for debian on this one, as both Mozilla Foundation and debian's holding corporation (Software in the Public Interest, Inc) are US-based.
Again, that's not relevant either. The law applicable is that of the country of distribution; US law doesn't get exported everywhere just because someone happens to have their HQ over there.
ftp-master.debian.org is in the US and so are a lot of other debian donations. Even ignoring money, it's a bigger pain if distribution is stopped there, although I'm sure there'd be a workaround for any technical problems. I don't see how you can claim it's not relevant. Very strange.
(it might be better if the discussion on law continued offlist)
On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 10:57 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Trademarks identify the *source* of the goods; they're applied to things to mark their origin.
Indeed. Filenames do not "identify the source of the goods" - they are just a convenient mutable label for program or storage files.
Doesn't matter; a mark is something which identifies a source. The reverse logic above - that only source identifiers (e.g., labels) can hold marks - isn't right. A mark can appear anywhere.
Whatever else, the more extreme claims in discussions about needing to change filenames which let you execute "firefox" or "apt-get install mozilla-firefox" are not directly trademarky.
They quite plainly are. Do you think that if Microsoft included an icon on their desktop labelled "AOL" that actually called up an MSN connection, that it wouldn't be a breach of AOL's trade mark rights?
Really, I was hoping that you would agree that there is an upper limit to the trademark problems. You seem to be asserting that any use of the word firefox in any context requires the trademark holder's permission. Do I understand that correctly?
No, you don't. What I'm trying to put across is that the scope of trade marks is different to the scope you're suggesting: you're making claims like "functional names cannot infringe trademarks"; this plainly isn't true. The law doesn't make those exceptions.
ftp-master.debian.org is in the US and so are a lot of other debian donations. Even ignoring money, it's a bigger pain if distribution is stopped there, although I'm sure there'd be a workaround for any technical problems. I don't see how you can claim it's not relevant. Very strange.
Your claim seemed to be that US law was the only concern because Debian is mostly US-based.
If we only consider US law, then MoFo does have certain options - like not enforcing its trademark, or sublicensing, or whatever. What we actually have is a much more complex situation, and the options open to MoFo over their marks is much narrower.
If Debian is only willing to talk in terms of US law (which I'm not sure they are doing), they should surely understand that MoFo is talking in a wider context and potentially isn't able to offer solutions that Debian thinks are available.
Does that affect the freeness of the software? I'm not sure. I do think marks are generally incompatible with free software, and I think the case law supports that point of view pretty well. *But* - if I can get software A from an original supplier with marks, and elsewhere without marks, I would probably still consider the software with marks to be free software - there is no functional difference, which is basically what concerns me. I would view it much like installing Debian from a binary-only CD set, if you see what I mean.
However, it's pretty clear that use of marks can prevent modification insofar as it requires extra work in order to redistribute modifications. I think, though (given the work Moz have already put into markless building wrt. the logos, etc.) that this is a mistake that requires fixing. Moz already have these in other areas (e.g., trilicensing), as do others (RedHat had a similar issue). It's clearly a problem, but not (for me) a problem on the same scale as (say) Talkback.
Cheers,
Alex.
Alex Hudson wrote:
Your claim seemed to be that US law was the only concern because Debian is mostly US-based.
No, the claim was exactly "Sadly, US law is the main concern for debian on this one" which was to explain why a lot of the debian-legal posts focused on it. Can you see that my claim and your (longer) summary of it are clearly different?
I think you are trying to toy with me again and you don't really care about the views of debian developers on how to solve the firefox trademark problems, for whyever. Let's end this here.
On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 12:41 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Alex Hudson wrote:
Your claim seemed to be that US law was the only concern because Debian is mostly US-based.
No, the claim was exactly "Sadly, US law is the main concern for debian on this one" which was to explain why a lot of the debian-legal posts focused on it. Can you see that my claim and your (longer) summary of it are clearly different?
Ah, I think we're talking at cross-purposes - while debian-legal is quite US-oriented, I understand that. I was talking more about our discussion on this list, though obviously you are mostly informed on this issue by the discussion on debian-legal.
The issue at stake here is, "Is firefox free software?". Now, the talkback stuff is pretty cut'n'dried. The trademark stuff is less so - and the complexity of the situation here in the EU was what I was trying to get across. Because Moz are putting in effort to produce a white-label release, I'm fairly confident that Firefox can be called free software - but, by doing that, I'm not trying to belittle the problems Debian are experiencing distributing that software.
You don't really care about the views of debian developers on how to solve the firefox trademark problems
I actually do; but I think that the debian-legal discussion is missing some key points. In particular, I noted that Mozilla are on problematic territory and I set out the reasons why I think they can't easily reverse out of that right now.
Debian also have a problem, but I think they do have something of a solution (insofar as they can distribute iceweasel). Is that solution a reality yet? Well, no, Moz have problems - but I don't think those problems are enough to label Firefox "non-free".
I also think - though my mind is not made up on the issue - that trade marked official Firefox binaries could be free software. But, as I said in my last e-mail, I'm not sure how commonly held a point of view that might be,
Cheers,
Alex.
Alex Hudson wrote:
Ah, I think we're talking at cross-purposes - while debian-legal is quite US-oriented, I understand that. I was talking more about our discussion on this list, though obviously you are mostly informed on this issue by the discussion on debian-legal.
I am not discussing the wider issue on this list. It should be pretty clear that I was adding a summary and references about the debian discussion mentioned by AKFoerster. http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/2005-April/004959.html
I then replied to your (inaccurate, IMO, maybe because it was ignoring the laws different contributors were worrying about) commentary, which I probably shouldn't have done.
Even so, you seem to be making a habit of incredible claims.
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 04:05:22PM +0100, Alex Hudson wrote:
Going back to the Talkback problem, we should be encouraging Mozilla to fix the problem and help them do it. I know RMS called for a forked packaging effort - I think all parties would be better served if free binaries were available from Mozilla.
I agree that it would be best if the official binaries would clearly be Free Software and people could build firefox binaries they can redistribute. How to best get there, I do not know. Certainly one step is to be aware of the problem.