[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP

[Remco]

Trademark is, like copyright and patents, an "intellectual property",
designed to restrict other people. It's not in the spirit of free
software to be bound by any of these. Patent problems are hard to avoid
in general, which is why they should be abolished. Copyright has been
tamed by free software and trademark should be used carefully, if at
all. If you want your work to be redistributed as free software under
its original name, trademark presents a problem.

By the way, these restrictions actually encourage cloning. Had there
been no copyright on UNIX, there would have been no 10 different
versions of it, including GNU. Had there been no patents on MPEG, there
would have been no Theora. Had there been no trademark on Firefox®,
there would have been no Iceweasel, Icecat or abrowser.

> Notice how Slackware and Mozilla have identical trademark protection.
> You can't change a bit in Slackware's source and call it Slackware.
> This, of course, has nothing to do with software, which is free and
> you can do whatever you want with it. Trademark isn't software.

Note also that other distributions (even if they were based on
Slackware) are not called Slackware. And therefore, they use the free
nameless version of the combined software. If they would be called
Slackware, they would be non-free (they would be misleading and
confusing as well).

The same is true for the Firefox code. If we use the nameless version
and build our own brand, we use free software. If we use Firefox®, we
aren't using free software, since the license of the branded binary is
non-free.

There is a difference between distributions and application software.
Trademark usually doesn't conflict with distributions, since each
distribution wants its own name and identity. If a distribution's name
falls under the trademark of another distribution, it would be non-free,
but it would also be a bug.

However, Firefox® must be included in a distribution. This means the
distribution will always fall under the trademark of Mozilla. This can
only be solved by removing the trademarked parts.

Think back to the games: Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory is absolutely
free.... except for the artwork. You are completely free to change the
code, but there is this blob of stuff that you can't change.

Now, the following is a very small part of the problem, but still I
mention it because the analogy is perfect: Mozilla Firefox is absolutely
free, except for the artwork. You can't modify the logos.

But besides the logos, there is this other restriction:

Mozilla Firefox is absolutely free... except for the trademark. You are
completely free to change the code, but you're not allowed to change
stuff if Mozilla doesn't want you to. To keep Mozilla happy, you have to
compromise by allowing this friendly notice, and whatever Mozilla may
want in the future. Basically, Mozilla is an "additional terms
wildcard".

I don't like this any more than anyone. I want to use Firefox, but I
also want to use software that is not restricted by outsiders. The
Firefox code and Firefox® are two different products with two different
licenses. The one is free, but undesirable. The other is bound by
Mozilla's wishes, but a strong brand. It's a lose lose situation. Except
if Mozilla relinquishes the Firefox trademark, which is unlikely.

-- 
AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Mozilla
Bugs, which is subscribed to firefox-3.0 in ubuntu.