3 ms·

I would agree. The Firefox/Iceweasel thing is probably the best example of this.[1] It seems silly on the surface (who cares right?) but Debian is very strict

by jcurbo 14y ago

I would agree. The Firefox/Iceweasel thing is probably the best example of this.[1] It seems silly on the surface (who cares right?) but Debian is very strict on the idea of freely redistributable software, even to minute levels other distros might not care about. The presence of debian-legal for so long is another testament to this fact (the mailing list archives go back to 1998). [2] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation_software_rebranded_by_the_Debian_project#Origins_of_the_issue_and_of_the_Iceweasel_name http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation_software_re... [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/ http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/

fdr 14y ago
I think it is completely non-silly. Debian was very simply and to the letter of the law in violation of the terms under which a piece of software can be called Firefox, and at any time Mozilla Corporation is entitled to bring civil action, as far as I can tell. My understanding is that at the time they were backpatching security fixes to derivative versions of Firefox -- specifically, older versions for which upstream had dropped support. What if one of those introduced an annoying crash or security problem? Is it fair that Mozilla Corporation's Good Name on the hook for it, if it does not wish to be? If Mozilla Corporation (or would it be Foundation?) felt that they wanted to enable this kind of derivative distribution of their software, they could have very simply offered provisions like the Linux Trademark Institute: http://www.linuxfoundation.org/programs/legal/trademark http://www.linuxfoundation.org/programs/legal/trademark. Clearly, Debian still has many references -- and modifications -- to Linux. Problem solved. But, as far as I can tell, this was not to be. I am not a Debian developer nor someone who was actively following that conversation, but when I heard about the decision I have not heard a single convincing (or even any) argument that it was an incorrect one, but again, I'm not familiar with the matter in great detail. Proprietary software companies can be awfully persnickety about...well, everything regarding their license and trademark, and I don't see why lack of adherence to a contract is acceptable just because there is Free Software (but not free trademark) involved. The silliest part is the name chosen.
davidw 14y ago
Heh, I had a hand in the creation of the latter:-) http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1998/11/msg02560.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1998/11/msg02560.html The only problem with it is that, at least in the past, there were no qualifications to join it, so you got lots of "legal opinions" from people that weren't necessarily grounded in any sort of actual ... reality. In any event though, Debian is awesome, and an extremely impressive volunteer effort.
malsme 14y ago
The thing that's always bothered me about that browser is the name, it almost sounds like it was chosen to be antagonistic, like they had a chip on their shoulder. I am probably reading too much into it, but that's the impression I get when comparing the two names: Firefox = fast & determined; Iceweasel = cold & deceitful.

by jcurbo 14y ago

fdr 14y ago

I think it is completely non-silly. Debian was very simply and to the letter of the law in violation of the terms under which a piece of software can be called Firefox, and at any time Mozilla Corporation is entitled to bring civil action, as far as I can tell. My understanding is that at the time they were backpatching security fixes to derivative versions of Firefox -- specifically, older versions for which upstream had dropped support. What if one of those introduced an annoying crash or security problem? Is it fair that Mozilla Corporation's Good Name on the hook for it, if it does not wish to be? If Mozilla Corporation (or would it be Foundation?) felt that they wanted to enable this kind of derivative distribution of their software, they could have very simply offered provisions like the Linux Trademark Institute: http://www.linuxfoundation.org/programs/legal/trademark http://www.linuxfoundation.org/programs/legal/trademark. Clearly, Debian still has many references -- and modifications -- to Linux. Problem solved. But, as far as I can tell, this was not to be. I am not a Debian developer nor someone who was actively following that conversation, but when I heard about the decision I have not heard a single convincing (or even any) argument that it was an incorrect one, but again, I'm not familiar with the matter in great detail. Proprietary software companies can be awfully persnickety about...well, everything regarding their license and trademark, and I don't see why lack of adherence to a contract is acceptable just because there is Free Software (but not free trademark) involved. The silliest part is the name chosen.

davidw 14y ago

Heh, I had a hand in the creation of the latter:-) http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1998/11/msg02560.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1998/11/msg02560.html The only problem with it is that, at least in the past, there were no qualifications to join it, so you got lots of "legal opinions" from people that weren't necessarily grounded in any sort of actual ... reality. In any event though, Debian is awesome, and an extremely impressive volunteer effort.

malsme 14y ago

The thing that's always bothered me about that browser is the name, it almost sounds like it was chosen to be antagonistic, like they had a chip on their shoulder. I am probably reading too much into it, but that's the impression I get when comparing the two names: Firefox = fast & determined; Iceweasel = cold & deceitful.