It's official, Debian is renaming firefox

[plb]

When most people think about the Mozilla Firefox browser, they think of it as being open source and free.

The truth is, while Mozilla Firefox is open source, it is not entirely free, and it may not even be legally compatible with Debian GNU/Linux, one of the most popular community Linux distribution bases.

The issue at hand is whether Debian can use the Firefox name for the Mozilla Firefox packages it includes in its GNU/Linux distribution.

Though Debian and Debian-derived distributions such as the popular Ubuntu Linux currently include Mozilla Firefox, they do not typically include the actual Mozilla Firefox logo (the stylized fox on the globe). And therein lies the rub.

Debian adheres to a strict interpretation of what is Free Software and what isn't, as outlined in the Debian Free Software Guidelines.

The Firefox logo is trademarked, so Debian doesn't consider it to be Free and will not include it as part of its distribution. Mozilla claims that using the Firefox name without the official branding is a trademark violation.

Furthermore, Mozilla claims that if Debian runs any patches to the version of Firefox included with Debian distros, it has to run them by Mozilla first for approval.

What all this ultimately could mean is that the Firefox name is wiped from the face of Debian and its offshoots.

Debian developer Eric Dorland confirmed to internetnews.com that Debian will re-name Firefox and that the re-naming process could be completed as soon as next week.

The whole dispute stems from the Mozilla Corporation's new-found determination to enforce trademarks.

In an e-mail sent to Debian developers, Mozilla staffer Mike Connor explained that the Mozilla Corporation has been handling patch approvals from distributions since the corporation's inception in September of 2005.

"The way this works (and the way Red Hat and Novell have already gone through the process for 1.0 and 1.5) is that you have to submit patches that deviate from the source tarballs in order to continue to use the trademark," Connor wrote.

"This is us attempting to tell you that what you are doing is not correct and needs to change.

"If you are going to use the Firefox name, you must also use the rest of the branding," Connor continued. "This is not something where you are free to pick what parts you want to use. Either use the trademarked logos and name together or don't."

The timing of Mozilla's trademark enforcement lust couldn't have come at a worse time for Debian.

A new Debian distro release, code-named "Etch," is due out by the end of the year, the first major release since Sarge in June 2005. Dorland actually asked Connor at one point in their e-mail discussion for a ,"stay of execution" until after Etch is released.

Mozilla's Connor had no sympathy for Dorland or Debian Etch and argued that the issue needs to be resolved before the release.

"I would think it makes much more sense to resolve this before you put another long-lived release into the wild, unless your aim is to delay compliance," Connor wrote to Dorland.

Debian's Dorland is standing his ground and will comply with Mozilla's heavy handedness by re-naming the Mozilla Firefox packages so that Debian will no longer be considered to be infringing on Mozilla's trademarks.

While using the Firefox name without the Firefox logo is not permissible, changing the name and calling Firefox something else is permissible.

It is unknown at this point what the new name for Debian's Firefox package will be called.

"There are a few names floating around that I'll probably choose from," Dorland told internetnews.com. "I'm afraid some of them might be too close to 'Firefox' to be comfortable if, for some reason, the Mozilla Corp. wished to come down even harder.

"I'll pretty much have to pick something and start the renaming by next week if I've any hope to get things ready for Etch."

In Dorland's view, the logo and the Mozilla approvals for Debian's Firefox patches are fundamentally the same issue.

"They really both stem from the same issue, that they're taking a very hard-line approach with their trademarks," Dorland said. "Now their lawyers may feel this is necessary -- and legally it may actually be the 'correct' thing to do -- but it really seems to run counter to community expectations.

"But I suppose on a day-to-day basis having to seek approval for patches would make working on the package a lot less fun."

http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3634591

[Klaidas]

When most people think about the Mozilla Firefox browser, they think of it as being open source and free.

umm, no. I think of it as a good browser.

[Reshin]

How is this gonna affect other distros? Especially gentoo?

[Kateikyoushi]

It's up to them but I guess gentoo will rename it as well.

[Jussi Kukkonen]

Now their lawyers may feel this is necessary -- and legally it may actually be the 'correct' thing to do -- but it really seems to run counter to community expectations.
My thoughts exactly -- if the plan was this already in 2005, as it seems, they really should have communicated that to the community loudly and clearly.

[BLTicklemonster]

Bon Echo seems pretty much like a cool browser. Only used it to come here and post about getting edgy working in vmware under dapper, though. I finally get it now, though: the firefox in debian is not exactly the same firefox you would get from the people at firefox, therefore it's not really the same thing as the real honest to God firefox version of firefox, therefore they don't appreciate that at all. I was wondering wtf all this was about until I finally understood that part. I guess some of us are still wondering what the big deal is, but I do some mapping in ut and a fellow took a map I'd made once, altered it a wee bit, then put in the level properties: from an original idea by "his name". I was a bit ticked off. The actual map was from ut2k4, and I'd only converted the basic design to ut, but in level properties, I never claimed it was my original idea. In fact, I'd put that it was based on the 2k4 map. It really eats me up when people take stuff someone else did and call it their own thing. BUT, this firefox issue is different. Had that fellow taken the map, and altered it and put "Ticklemonster" in level properties- author, that wouldn't have been right either.

So in short, suffice it to say, "aaaahhh, I see what it's all about now", and, "I guess we can still just install it after we install ubuntu, so no big deal".

That said, let me ask this: is there going to be adblock, video downloader and all the other wicked stuff to add on in Bon Echo that you can get in firefox? If so, the woot woot, don't look back.

[punkinside]

I dont really know why this is so important. The code is free, we'll get the same thing only with a different icon and name. First thing I do every time firefox updates is change the icon back to the fox-world thingy. I couldnt care less what it was called.

Theyre just taking extra precautions to protect the name "firefox" as does canonical or even linus torvalds though in a more relaxed way. In any case, its very bad timing.

[ago]

I dont really know why this is so important. The code is free, we'll get the same thing only with a different icon and name.
We already have a different icon...

The real question is: what name?

Anybody want to guess? I go for "BOF" = "browser on fire". :P...


Theyre just taking extra precautions to protect the name "firefox" as does canonical or even linus torvalds though in a more relaxed way. In any case, its very bad timing.
I agree, what they are doing is reasonable, the brand is important, you do not want flimsy modified versions to disrupt your reputation. You can still modify the code as much as you want, just call it differently. Perfectly acceptable IMO. My only complaint is that they should have warned Debian & co beforehand.

[Rotarychainsaw]

Quick, someone fork it!

[cunawarit]

I may install Firefox from Mozilla myself...

[Astrophobos]

Bon Echo seems pretty much like a cool browser. [...] That said, let me ask this: is there going to be adblock, video downloader and all the other wicked stuff to add on in Bon Echo that you can get in firefox? If so, the woot woot, don't look back.

As far as I know Bon echo is only a codename from mozilla to identify a developement release of firefox.

[Kateikyoushi]

Yes bon echo is the codename of the 2.0 version of FF so you will get the same extensions as soon they get updated.

[Mathiasdm]

When most people think about the Mozilla Firefox browser, they think of it as being open source and free.

The truth is, while Mozilla Firefox is open source, it is not entirely free, and it may not even be legally compatible with Debian GNU/Linux, one of the most popular community Linux distribution bases.
It's Open Source and free.
However, that's not why I use it. I use it because it's good (just as I use Opera).


I dont really know why this is so important. The code is free, we'll get the same thing only with a different icon and name. First thing I do every time firefox updates is change the icon back to the fox-world thingy. I couldnt care less what it was called.

Theyre just taking extra precautions to protect the name "firefox" as does canonical or even linus torvalds though in a more relaxed way. In any case, its very bad timing.
QFT


My only complaint is that they should have warned Debian & co beforehand.
Why? The Debian developers know the Firefox name is trademarked.

[BLTicklemonster]

Quick, someone fork it!

Forkin' A!!!

[ago]

Why? The Debian developers know the Firefox name is trademarked.

Well they gave them a kind of ultimatum recently, nothing wrong with it, but they could have done so before, giving them some more time (particularly considering Debian deadlines)...

[Josh1]

IMHO, we should get to pick/vote a new name for firefox for ubuntu.. how cool would that be? I vote ubuntusox :P

[fuscia]

i like 'burnt vixen'. it hints at the dark underbelly of open source.

[plb]

I wonder if debian and ubuntu will use the same name for firefox.

[Kateikyoushi]

I vote for nameless one, the nameless browser.

[BLTicklemonster]

Foxbuntu!!!

[gruffy-06]

:mad: If this continues, I might as well go back to using Windows.

[fuscia]

:mad: If this continues, I might as well go back to using Windows.

walk it off.

[Jussi Kukkonen]

:mad: If this continues, I might as well go back to using Windows.
If you are referring to Ubuntus commitment to software freedom: Yeah, I believe that will continue. Get used to it ;)

[Bloodfen Razormaw]

It's a shame that Mozilla is insisting on keeping branded Firefox proprietary. I'm glad Debian stuck on the side of freedom. They are certainly less vindictive than me; I would have emphasized the unfree nature of Firefox for all the world by branding Firefox but only making it available in the non-free repositories. Still, Mozilla hopefully realizes how bad this publicity has been for them and will start thinking of joining the right team by freeing Firefox.

[BLTicklemonster]

Well heck, boys, ever silver cloud has a ... eh, um, hey, you know what this means? They need a logo for bon echo. Quick, what image do you have come to mind when you think, "bon echo"?

Yah, some kraut in leiderhosen standing on a cliff telling everyone how good the browser is... (bon!! bon!! bon!! bon!!)

Well, the name does have a good bounce to it..

anyway, they'll need a new logo, wonder if they'll do it themselves or what?

(I'll just make my own probably anyway)

Now I'll just sit here and wait for some good comebacks...

[Tanath]

It's a shame that Mozilla is insisting on keeping branded Firefox proprietary. I'm glad Debian stuck on the side of freedom. They are certainly less vindictive than me; I would have emphasized the unfree nature of Firefox for all the world by branding Firefox but only making it available in the non-free repositories. Still, Mozilla hopefully realizes how bad this publicity has been for them and will start thinking of joining the right team by freeing Firefox.
It's not proprietary or "unfree" because the name & logo are trademarks. They're just defending their rights. There are ethical/legal, and practical reasons to do this. If distros ship modified versions of Firefox with the Firefox name & logo, then people start reporting bugs to Mozilla that don't exist in Firefox, only in the modified versions.

[3rdalbum]

Here's what I propose:

1. Mozilla include a feature of Firefox which lets you perminantly disable the auto-updates feature. Debian, Ubuntu and probably every other distro maker would have this set by default. This way, they could still use a stock Firefox (and call it that) in their distributions. Or:

2. The Linux community gets together and comes up with a single name for the modified Firefoxes, so you don't get the situation where you have the same browser but with a hundred different names. ("LBrowser", "Ubuntulink", "WebDrake" etc)

[graigsmith]

The truth is, while Mozilla Firefox is open source, it is not entirely free, and it may not even be legally compatible with Debian GNU/Linux, one of the most popular community Linux distribution bases.

neither is debian. if some other company wanted to release a debian os with just a few changes. AND still call it debian. debian ask them to change their name. same goes for mozilla firefox.

so why shouldn't debian be expected to change the name of firefox?

[graigsmith]

It's a shame that Mozilla is insisting on keeping branded Firefox proprietary. I'm glad Debian stuck on the side of freedom. They are certainly less vindictive than me; I would have emphasized the unfree nature of Firefox for all the world by branding Firefox but only making it available in the non-free repositories. Still, Mozilla hopefully realizes how bad this publicity has been for them and will start thinking of joining the right team by freeing Firefox.

isn't the debian's branding proprietary? isn't ubuntu's? they don't allow other companies to use their trademarked os names. your holding debian and ubuntu to a different standard than you are mozilla firefox.

all three of these corporations have proprietary branding. but the code is still free.

[jr.gotti]

Eh...

It happens. (Wow! That was a clever circumvention to censoring!)

It could be worse, they could start making us pay. Firefox is still an amazing browser, and the first thing I did when I installed Edgy was remove Bon Echo, and head over to getfirefox.com.

It's still freely available, just not through apt. I believe some people are failing to realize this

Edit: Clever editing to reinforce correct language

Edit: Damnit Kiwi!!! Do you EVER sleep!?!!

[punkinside]

just name it "web browser" and thats that...

In any case I think they should change the name every release in the manner we are used to:

Feisty Fox
Foxy Fox (that took a lot of imagination!)
Friendly Fox
F'ing Fox

etc...

[Qrk]

It isn't like this is unprecedented. Debian has also been stingy with who gets to use their name (not the Debian Core Consortium, remember... its just DCC now)

I think this is a fair solution. Firefox has a right to protect its name and branding. Debian also has the right to "psuedo-fork" firefox and call it what then want. I call it a psuedo-fork because Debian won't be taking over devolepment of a browser, they'll just rebrand it.

I still support epiphany as the included browser for Ubuntu, as it integrates much better with Gnome, but I'll continue to love Firefox, as either Firefox or Iceweasel.

[kripkenstein]

isn't the debian's branding proprietary? isn't ubuntu's? they don't allow other companies to use their trademarked os names. your holding debian and ubuntu to a different standard than you are mozilla firefox.

all three of these corporations have proprietary branding. but the code is still free.

Aside from the trademark, there is also the matter of copyright. The Firefox logos and artwork are copyrighted, and you can only use them under certain conditions. I am not sure, but I don't think Debian has copyrighted images.

But yes, all of these organizations have trademarks on their names, and understandably so.

However, note that when someone distributes Debian with changes, they generally change the name (Ubuntu, Mepis, etc.); and if you distribute Debian without any changes, that would be just making a copy, and you keep the name. This is different from the situation with Firefox; distros want to change Firefox a bit but keep the name. This is probably the reason why we see Mozilla defending their trademark more often than e.g. Debian.

[Jussi Kukkonen]

I am not sure, but I don't think Debian has copyrighted images.

As an ironic twist, they do. The Debian swirl (the "open use logo") is, as far as I know, still not DFSG-free. If Debian followed their social contract to the letter, they couldn't use their own logo ;). This is mostly technical, since I remember there being a decision to change the license years ago (with the copyright owners consent) -- it's just not been done yet for some reason.

[Tanath]

The logos are proprietary in the literal sense of the word, but the arguments against using proprietary things like audio & video formats are invalid against trademarks. There are good reason to use open formats, but using someone else's trademark is not ethical.

[bruce89]

It doesn't really matter to Debian, they don't ship Iceweasel by default anyway.

[gruffy-06]

How about Airglider for a new browser?

[richbarna]

How about "theroundblueclickynonamebrowser", or how about "whocares!!".

It's free, it works, stuff the name and logo.

[argie]

Quick, someone fork it!
Haha!

Still, as long as extensions are compatible, I don't mind another logo and name.

[mcduck]

Quick, someone fork it!Swiftfox, anyone?

[FISHERMAN]

Quick, someone fork it!

http://www.gnu.org/software/gnuzilla/

[cborga1985]

i use swiftfox as it is much more stable and faster than normal firefox in linux. mozilla has the right to protect their reputation so i think it's fair.

[Kilz]

i use swiftfox as it is much more stable and faster than normal firefox in linux. mozilla has the right to protect their reputation so i think it's fair.
Swiftfox is Non Free software. It is licensed under the authors own license. I would not recommend anyone who loves FOSS to use Swiftfox. Not only doses the author take away freedom. But it really doesn't add anything Swiftfox is simply a recompile of Firefox. There are no added features.

[Stirling]

Swiftfox is Non Free software. It is licensed under the authors own license. I would not recommend anyone who loves FOSS to use Swiftfox. Not only doses the author take away freedom. But it really doesn't add anything Swiftfox is simply a recompile of Firefox. There are no added features.
I think at this point you have become a spammer.

[.t.]

No. That was uncalled for. He is entitled to the source and the instructions you use to build. He says what you know too, and if you are uncertain about the validity of your licence as free, then go speak to the OSI about it. I for one, doubt your code and licence, and Kilz has a right to freedom of speech. You are allowed to say Windows is non-free, why not Swiftfox? He's not making any kind of personal attack. You, however, were, by calling him an untruth. He's not a spammer.

[Stirling]

No. That was uncalled for. He is entitled to the source and the instructions you use to build. He says what you know too, and if you are uncertain about the validity of your licence as free, then go speak to the OSI about it. I for one, doubt your code and licence, and Kilz has a right to freedom of speech. You are allowed to say Windows is non-free, why not Swiftfox? He's not making any kind of personal attack. You, however, were, by calling him an untruth. He's not a spammer.
He has the source, end of story. He goes beyond expressing his freedom of speech. When 3 of his last 5 posts are the same thing he is spamming.

[Kilz]

He has the source, end of story. He goes beyond expressing his freedom of speech. When 3 of his last 5 posts are the same thing he is spamming.

I have every right to inform users of Ubuntu, a FOSS operating system that the application they think is FOSS isn't. Part of being an active member of this community is helping and informing others.
If you have a problem with the definition of Free software (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html) I suggest you take it up with the Free Software Foundation.

[.t.]

Stirling, you just seem to have the bit between your teeth that Kilz is out to get you because he thinks that Swiftfox should be free; even if the name isn't he has a right to the code. Well, you should be over that by now. Grow up.

[Stirling]

I have every right to inform users of Ubuntu, a FOSS operating system that the application they think is FOSS isn't. Part of being an active member of this community is helping and informing others.
If you have a problem with the definition of Free software (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html) I suggest you take it up with the Free Software Foundation.
Well rather than spam every topic that mentions Swiftfox why don't you just add your opinion to your signature and be done with it. Topics that have nothing to do with licensing shouldn't be hijacked just because you don't like the program.

[Stirling]

Stirling, you just seem to have the bit between your teeth that Kilz is out to get you because he thinks that Swiftfox should be free; even if the name isn't he has a right to the code. Well, you should be over that by now. Grow up.
What part of this do you not understand? He has the code.

[Kilz]

Well rather than spam every topic that mentions Swiftfox why don't you just add your opinion to your signature and be done with it. Topics that have nothing to do with licensing shouldn't be hijacked just because you don't like the program.

My answer was a reply to a community member who recommended Swiftfox as a replacement. As a community member I posted a reply that it isnt a good FOSS replacement. That they would be replacing FOSS software with NON FOSS software. Get over it. You chose the license. You chose to restrict users freedoms. Not me, if you dont want Swiftfox to be known as non free change the license.


What part of this do you not understand? He has the code.What part of it doesnt matter, that restricting redistribution makes Swiftfox NON FREE. Maybe you should write the FSF to find out how to make Swiftfox Free. :-D Im sure RMS would be happy to explain it to you.

[matthew]

All of you need to get over it right now. Thank you.