On Wednesday 06 December 2006 15:58, Michael Poole wrote: > Sean Kellogg writes: > > What meaning does Firefox have beyond identifying it as "a browser made > > by the Mozilla Foundation"? (oh, and the actual name of a kind of fox > > that was mentioned earlier). I don't want to give away the farm here, > > but if you can show another meaning then you've really got an argument > > against my claim. > > "Firefox" is the code base that the Mozilla Foundation uses to build > the Mozilla Firefox web browser. It is certainly the user interface > and feature set associated with that code. I thought I said so > earlier. The use of the "Firefox" mark to distinguish web browsers > built and supported by the Mozilla Foundation from any other browser > built from the underlying source code is a relatively recent thing.
So, you propose that Firefox refers to both the code base and the browser? It's interesting, to be certain, but I don't think it changes anything. 'apt-get source firefox' gets a great deal more than just Firefox(TM) code base... it also gets all those debian patches and control files. So it's actually Firefox(TM) Plus. Adding to a product doesn't allow you to co-opt the original product's name. Which means we are right back where we started. > To that end, it is courteous and appropriate that Debian expediently > move away from using the "Firefox" name without approval from the > Mozilla Foundation, but I do not think the law requires Debian to move > away so quickly that users are left without a working web browser. And here we TOTALLY agree. It is courteous for debian to provide a smooth transition. I would even go so far as to say it would be courteous for Mozilla to approve the use of the tradekmark term for the transition package given the history up until now. But that it is good or right is not the issue. The issue is that Debian has taken a trademarked term and used it to market their product without permission. Until that permission is granted, all the good intentions in the world don't matter a hill of beans. But this could all be resolved if someone within Debian would just ask Mozilla... "hey, mind if we use the term firefox to name a transitional package that will automatically install iceweasel on our user's system?" If they say yes, as we both think is fair given the history up until now, then great. If not, then the package should be removed. -Sean -- Sean Kellogg e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] w: http://blog.probonogeek.org/ So, let go ...Jump in ...Oh well, what you waiting for? ...it's all right ...'Cause there's beauty in the breakdown
