Wouter Verhelst | 18 Sep 10:17 2008
Picon

Proposed vote on issue of the day: trademarks and free software

Hi,

For those of you who're not aware: the Mozilla Foundation is now forcing
people who want to use their firefox trademark to display an EULA to
their users on first run of the software. It does not currently require
them to accept to it, so they can easily bypass the license by just
ignoring it.

Obviously this doesn't have any effect on us; we don't use the Mozilla
trademark, and unless they choose to drop the GPL or MPL or any of their
other licenses as a license choice, we can just ignore this EULA, but
that doesn't make this thing any less obnoxious.

I find the kind of practices that the Mozilla Foundation is going
through rather disturbing. Free Software is about giving people the
ability to modify software and share these modifications; and though
Mozilla isn't currently doing that, they /are/ impeding the freedom to
modify software for those users who want to use their trademark.

There are two reasons I'm proposing this vote, even though it doesn't
directly affect us:
- I've always considered Debian to be a leading member of the Free
  Software community; as such, I feel it is our duty to tell others when
  we think they are straying off the path of Free Software.
- Perhaps more importantly, if the Free Software community as a whole
  accepts this kind of behaviour from large Free Software projects, it
  is not unimaginable that other projects will follow suit. This kind of
  thing /would/ directly affect us, since I'd hate to have to remember
  a Debian-World mappings of software names including things like
  Iceweasel-Firefox, Giant-Gnome, Degeneration-Evolution, and
(Continue reading)

Charles Plessy | 18 Sep 11:50 2008
Picon

Re: Proposed vote on issue of the day: trademarks and free software

Le Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 10:17:18AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
> For those of you who're not aware: the Mozilla Foundation is now forcing
> people who want to use their firefox trademark to display an EULA

Hi Wouter,

haven't we read on planet.debian.org that they changed their minds?

Have a nice day,

-- 
Charles

--

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST <at> lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster <at> lists.debian.org

Mike Hommey | 18 Sep 11:45 2008

Re: Proposed vote on issue of the day: trademarks and free software

On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 10:17:18AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst <wouter <at> debian.org> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> For those of you who're not aware: the Mozilla Foundation is now forcing
> people who want to use their firefox trademark to display an EULA to
> their users on first run of the software. It does not currently require
> them to accept to it, so they can easily bypass the license by just
> ignoring it.

... and they retracted.

Mike

MJ Ray | 18 Sep 13:56 2008

Re: Proposed vote on issue of the day: trademarks and free software


Wouter Verhelst <wouter <at> debian.org> wrote: [...]
> For those of you who're not aware: the Mozilla Foundation is now forcing
> people who want to use their firefox trademark to display an EULA to
> their users on first run of the software. It does not currently require
> them to accept to it, so they can easily bypass the license by just
> ignoring it.

While they may have changed their position, I don't think it changes
the basic problem with Firefox failing to be Free Software due to
trademarks.  The statement only mentions the EULA as an example of the
problem, not as the basic problem.

I also note that FSF's page at http://www.gnu.org/software/gnuzilla/
says Mozilla's Firefox build includes non-free software.

In short, I don't care whether someone breaks the DFSG with a
copyright licence or a trademark licence or a death threat or whatever
other tool.  It's about freedom, not a few laws.

So, I second issuing this statement:-

> ===Begin resolution text===
> The Debian Project has been watching the case around the Mozilla
> Project's EULA requirement for people wishing to use their trademarks
> from a distance. This is an issue that has been brewing for a few years
> now; and even though we've chosen not to use the Firefox, Thunderbird,
> Mozilla, and Seamonkey trademarks, we still feel that we ought to make
> our position on this important issue clear.
>
(Continue reading)

Mike Hommey | 18 Sep 14:43 2008

Re: Proposed vote on issue of the day: trademarks and free software

On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 12:56:28PM +0100, MJ Ray <mjr <at> phonecoop.coop> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Wouter Verhelst <wouter <at> debian.org> wrote: [...]
> > For those of you who're not aware: the Mozilla Foundation is now forcing
> > people who want to use their firefox trademark to display an EULA to
> > their users on first run of the software. It does not currently require
> > them to accept to it, so they can easily bypass the license by just
> > ignoring it.
> 
> While they may have changed their position, I don't think it changes
> the basic problem with Firefox failing to be Free Software due to
> trademarks.  The statement only mentions the EULA as an example of the
> problem, not as the basic problem.
> 
> I also note that FSF's page at http://www.gnu.org/software/gnuzilla/
> says Mozilla's Firefox build includes non-free software.

It's actually outdated. Mozilla's Firefox build don't include non-free
software anymore, except its logo.

I haven't bothered modifying our cleanup script, that was based on
gnuzilla's but I do know that most of the files we cleanup are either
there by mistake or convenience (binary blobs for which the source
is provided, but that isn't really Mozilla stuff, such as nsis binaries,
for the windows installer, nsis itself being free software and the sources
being provided iirc), or are formats that GNU don't know about (like some
resource formats on MacOSX or Windows, or even BMP images).

(Continue reading)

MJ Ray | 18 Sep 17:28 2008

Re: Proposed vote on issue of the day: trademarks and free software

Mike Hommey <mh <at> glandium.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 12:56:28PM +0100, MJ Ray <mjr <at> phonecoop.coop> wrote:
> > I also note that FSF's page at http://www.gnu.org/software/gnuzilla/
> > says Mozilla's Firefox build includes non-free software.
>
> It's actually outdated. Mozilla's Firefox build don't include non-free
> software anymore, except its logo.

You're quite right.  As of 3.0.1-g1, the motivation has changed to
"some non-free files are distributed in the Firefox source tree, and
Firefox can recommend non-free plugins" but the website doesn't
reflect it yet.
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnuzilla/2008-07/msg00083.html

So I guess we're only fellow-travelling with FSF now.  However, my
support and second stands on the strength of the other reasons.

Thanks,
--

-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

Bas Wijnen | 18 Sep 18:04 2008
Picon

Re: Proposed vote on issue of the day: trademarks and free software

On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 12:56:28PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <wouter <at> debian.org> wrote: [...]
> > For those of you who're not aware: the Mozilla Foundation is now forcing
> > people who want to use their firefox trademark to display an EULA to
> > their users on first run of the software. It does not currently require
> > them to accept to it, so they can easily bypass the license by just
> > ignoring it.
> 
> While they may have changed their position, I don't think it changes
> the basic problem with Firefox failing to be Free Software due to
> trademarks.  The statement only mentions the EULA as an example of the
> problem, not as the basic problem.
...
> In short, I don't care whether someone breaks the DFSG with a
> copyright licence or a trademark licence or a death threat or whatever
> other tool.  It's about freedom, not a few laws.

Full AOL.  Thus I also second this statement:

> > ===Begin resolution text===
> > The Debian Project has been watching the case around the Mozilla
> > Project's EULA requirement for people wishing to use their trademarks
> > from a distance. This is an issue that has been brewing for a few years
> > now; and even though we've chosen not to use the Firefox, Thunderbird,
> > Mozilla, and Seamonkey trademarks, we still feel that we ought to make
> > our position on this important issue clear.
> >
> > The Free Software community as a whole is based around the notion that
> > one should be allowed to modify software when they feel it necessary;
> > and that the right to such modification and subsequent redistribution is
(Continue reading)

Russ Allbery | 19 Sep 01:51 2008
Picon

Re: Proposed vote on issue of the day: trademarks and free software

Wouter Verhelst <wouter <at> debian.org> writes:

> - I've always considered Debian to be a leading member of the Free
>   Software community; as such, I feel it is our duty to tell others when
>   we think they are straying off the path of Free Software.

Personally, I'd rather that we not do this.  There are other organizations
that specialize in this (the FSF, for example), whereas Debian specializes
in producing a distribution.  Unless the issue directly affects us, it
feels to me like a dilution of effort and a dilution of focus to make
official project statements about other people's free software practices.

--

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra <at> debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Wouter Verhelst | 19 Sep 11:45 2008
Picon

Re: Proposed vote on issue of the day: trademarks and free software

On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 04:51:45PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <wouter <at> debian.org> writes:
> 
> > - I've always considered Debian to be a leading member of the Free
> >   Software community; as such, I feel it is our duty to tell others when
> >   we think they are straying off the path of Free Software.
> 
> Personally, I'd rather that we not do this.  There are other organizations
> that specialize in this (the FSF, for example), whereas Debian specializes
> in producing a distribution.

That is a head-in-sand attitude.

I'd hope the FSF actually specializes in writing software, rather than
making statements. However, writing Free Software is not possible unless
there is a healthy community around it; the FSF thus takes a leading
role and makes some statements from time to time.

I can't see why the same can't be true for Debian. Sure, our specialty
is a distribution; but we've done things in the past that go beyond
making a distribution, too, and I'd think it would be appropriate in
this case as well.

> Unless the issue directly affects us, it feels to me like a dilution
> of effort and a dilution of focus to make official project statements
> about other people's free software practices.

I wouldn't have suggested this if it was the first time.

The main thing that compelled me to make this proposal is the fact that
(Continue reading)

Wouter Verhelst | 19 Sep 11:56 2008
Picon

Re: Proposed vote on issue of the day: trademarks and free software

On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 11:45:53AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 10:17:18AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst <wouter <at> debian.org> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > For those of you who're not aware: the Mozilla Foundation is now forcing
> > people who want to use their firefox trademark to display an EULA to
> > their users on first run of the software. It does not currently require
> > them to accept to it, so they can easily bypass the license by just
> > ignoring it.
> 
> .... and they retracted.

Well, crap, that'll teach me for procrastinating until the damn stuff
gets outdated :-)

Having said that, though, I feel that this should, at most, warrant a
rewording of the statement; not a retraction. This is not the first time
the mozilla people come up with this sort of thing, and I guess it's not
going to be the last time, either.

Rewording it so that the statement is no longer based on the assumption
that the EULA requirement is still in force would render this:

===Begin resolution text===
The Debian Project has been watching the case around the Mozilla
Project's EULA requirement for people wishing to use their trademarks
from a distance. This is an issue that has been brewing for a few years
now; and even though we've chosen not to use the Firefox, Thunderbird,
Mozilla, and Seamonkey trademarks, we still feel that we ought to make
our position on this important issue clear.
(Continue reading)


Gmane