Proposed Revisions to Mozilla Trademark Policy
Catherine Brady
routinely receive over again, we realized that the policy, like most
things after time, needed some attention and that it was time to review
and update it. We�ve attempted to clarify what was previously ambiguous
and to make explicit what was previously implicit. We believe that the
proposed changes make the policy clearer and easier to understand.
Please take a look at the following documents:
1. Updated Trademark Policy (a clean version incorporating all the
proposed changes) -
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Legal:Mozilla_Trademark_Policy/2009-06-09_Draft
2. Redline of the Updated Trademark Policy marked to show all the
changes from the current version -
https://wiki.mozilla.org/images/9/9e/2009-09-06-trademark-policy-diff.pdf.
We�d love to receive your feedback, suggestions, or questions on the
proposed changes.
Catherine
Asa Dotzler
One quick and small suggestion.
"When we receive reports of such activities, or identify problematic
activities, we analyze the reports and treat each case differently based
on the intent and severity of the matter."
I don't think it's quite accurate to say that we treat each case
_differently_. We may treat them _individually_ but we often end up
treating them the same way as other similar cases. Perhaps replace
"differently" with "individually" or something like that.
- A
Gen Kanai
On Jun 11, 2009, at 7:26 AM, Catherine Brady wrote:
> We’d love to receive your feedback, suggestions, or questions on the
> proposed changes.
Catherine,
I think the document looks good as revised. Maybe the only edit I
would add would be to explicitly state how users should contact
Mozilla to report trademark abuse.
Gen
Kevin Brosnan
To summarize, provided that the use adheres to our trademark policy
and visual guidelines, here are some of the things that you can do
with the Mozilla Marks that do not require our permission:
* use the Mozilla Marks in marketing, and other publicity-related materials;
This seems a little broad. Sounds like I could use the Mozilla marks
to promote something unrelated to Firefox or even browsers. Example
creating a flier for a laundromat that is promoting that they have
wi-fi. Toss in the Firefox logo and other trademarks instant
endorsement.
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 18:26, Catherine Brady<cbr...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> After responding to questions about the trademark policy that we routinely
> receive over again, we realized that the policy, like most things after
> time, needed some attention and that it was time to review and update it.
> We’ve attempted to clarify what was previously ambiguous and to make
> explicit what was previously implicit. We believe that the proposed changes
> make the policy clearer and easier to understand.
>
> Please take a look at the following documents:
>
> 1. Updated Trademark Policy (a clean version incorporating all the
> proposed changes) -
> https://wiki.mozilla.org/Legal:Mozilla_Trademark_Policy/2009-06-09_Draft
>
> 2. Redline of the Updated Trademark Policy marked to show all the
> changes from the current version -
> https://wiki.mozilla.org/images/9/9e/2009-09-06-trademark-policy-diff.pdf.
>
> We’d love to receive your feedback, suggestions, or questions on the
> proposed changes.
>
> Catherine
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> gover...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
>
Mike Beltzner
First and foremost, I want to say that I think that the new tone of
the document (more about enablement and less about restrictions) is
fantastic. I actually enjoyed reading a document about licensing and
trademarks. That is a special and valuable thing.
My comments are around the final section, "Mozilla Marks and
Merchandise." I really like how you've limited the restrictions to
commercial-use only; great change. I would like to see an additional
loosening, though, around the two "additional broad categories of
things you can't do":
* I think we should allow people to create modified versions, but
stress that if they modify the logo, they can NOT also include an
*un*modified wordmark, and vice-versa. The goal should be to prevent
brand confusion, I agree, but I'd like to do so in ways that make it
possible for someone to, say, take the fox silhouette and apply it in
interesting ways (such as a cloud in the sky) which run afoul of this
restriction. I think as long as it's not coupled with the wordmark, we
avoid the brand confusion. Of course, I am not a lawyer, so I might be
missing some legal intricacies here.
* I was sad to see that we were restricting access to high-resolution
logos, and wondering why - especially in light of the non-commercial
restriction - that is. It doesn't feel in line with the rest of the
spirit of this document, and will have significant detrimental effects
to allowing community developers to be able to help us with web and
product specific collateral. If you tell me that requests for the
content will be triaged and processed quickly (within 24 hours of
request) and without too much restraint, my concern here may be moot.
cheers,
mike
Mitchell Baker
Netscape used to make this description -- for a while netscape navigator
was free for non-commercial use and cost money for commercial use.
That distinction sounds simple but it is not. Eventually Netscape ended
up with a *team* of people trying to answer this question. I mean a
team that spend many hours each week trying to sort this out. maybe it
will be easier here because there is no money involved. But if this
distinction has impact on a lot of people, there will be more questions
that you would think.
mitchell
>> review and update it. We�ve attempted to clarify what was previously
>> ambiguous and to make explicit what was previously implicit. We
>> believe that the proposed changes make the policy clearer and easier
>> to understand.
>>
>> Please take a look at the following documents:
>>
>> 1. Updated Trademark Policy (a clean version incorporating all the
>> proposed changes) -
>> https://wiki.mozilla.org/Legal:Mozilla_Trademark_Policy/2009-06-09_Draft
>>
>> 2. Redline of the Updated Trademark Policy marked to show all the
>> changes from the current version -
>> https://wiki.mozilla.org/images/9/9e/2009-09-06-trademark-policy-diff.pdf.
>>
>>
>> We�d love to receive your feedback, suggestions, or questions on the
Mike Shaver
> First and foremost, I want to say that I think that the new tone of the
> document (more about enablement and less about restrictions) is fantastic. I
> actually enjoyed reading a document about licensing and trademarks. That is
> a special and valuable thing.
Agreed, very much. This is great work.
> My comments are around the final section, "Mozilla Marks and Merchandise." I
> really like how you've limited the restrictions to commercial-use only;
I think that's a problem, actually. Not only is "non-commercial use"
extremely difficult to define clearly, but I don't think it's
appropriate for our policies to segregate along those lines. Everyone
who uses our trademark does it in order to extract some value from the
use of the trademark, and I don't think we should care if that value
is fiscal or otherwise.
> * I think we should allow people to create modified versions, but stress
> that if they modify the logo, they can NOT also include an *un*modified
> wordmark, and vice-versa. The goal should be to prevent brand confusion, I
> agree, but I'd like to do so in ways that make it possible for someone to,
> say, take the fox silhouette and apply it in interesting ways (such as a
> cloud in the sky) which run afoul of this restriction. I think as long as
> it's not coupled with the wordmark, we avoid the brand confusion.
The wordmark omission alone wouldn't be enough to make me comfortable.
As an example, the FF 3.5 logo is a modified version of the FF3 one,
but I wouldn't want people free to use it.
(Is the fox silhouette is protected by our trademark anyway?)
But I'm confused by something else: isn't creation of derivatives a
_copyright_ issue, and not a trademark one? If they have a confusing
mark, it doesn't matter if they made it from scratch -- we just had
some designers do just that, IIRC, and the result is very recognizably
Firefox! -- or if they worked from our PSDs or PNGs or SVGs or
whatever. Similarly, if they have a non-confusing mark, like our
Minefield globe, then I don't think it matters if they started with
our assets or not, from a trademark perspective.
I, too, am not a lawyer. :)
> * I was sad to see that we were restricting access to high-resolution logos,
> and wondering why - especially in light of the non-commercial restriction -
> that is. It doesn't feel in line with the rest of the spirit of this
> document, and will have significant detrimental effects to allowing
> community developers to be able to help us with web and product specific
> collateral. If you tell me that requests for the content will be triaged and
> processed quickly (within 24 hours of request) and without too much
> restraint, my concern here may be moot.
I share this concern -- I think that we should have a trademark policy
that's strong enough to protect our trademark, and not restrict the
quality of non-infringing uses on the supply side.
Mike
Catherine Brady
for clarification, which will be incorporated.
Allowing modifications to the Mozilla Marks. I don't think it we'll be
able to allow this. It's important that our marks remain (1)
distinctive, (2) recognizable, and (3) undiluted. We want people to see
our logo or word marks and know immediately what they mean and
represent. Allowing others to modify them, could lead to dilution.
Dilution occurs either when unauthorized use of a mark blurs the
distinctive nature of the mark or tarnishes it. Also, it could lose its
distinctiveness and, if our registration was ever challenged, we might
lose the trademark because it was considered generic.
While the fox silhouette hasn't been registered separately, it is a
distinctive element of the Firefox logo, and, therefore, subject to the
trademark protection. This does not mean our logo can't evolve, such as
the new 3.5 logo with an extra flaming tail.
All this said, we are trying an experiment in Personas, by allowing a
"fan art" section since the use is strictly personal.
Access to high-resolution logos - we're exploring this option and trying
to figure out the (i) if it can be done; and (ii) the best way to do it
and still protect ourselves.
Commercial vs non-commercial usage. This restriction has been in place
since the original policy and any related questions, so far, have not
required much time.
Mike Beltzner
> Allowing modifications to the Mozilla Marks. I don't think it we'll
> be able to allow this. It's important that our marks remain (1)
> distinctive, (2) recognizable, and (3) undiluted. We want people to
> see our logo or word marks and know immediately what they mean and
> represent. Allowing others to modify them, could lead to dilution.
> Dilution occurs either when unauthorized use of a mark blurs the
> distinctive nature of the mark or tarnishes it. Also, it could lose
> its distinctiveness and, if our registration was ever challenged, we
> might lose the trademark because it was considered generic.
That all makes sense. My concern is perhaps more with the
restrictiveness of the usage guidelines. Right now those guidelines
make a lot of sense for printed materials and websites, but seem
overly restrictive for creating web banners, t-shirts, posters, etc.
Basically I fear that if we wanted to encourage community generated
advertising and evangelism material (which we do) we would limit
creativity.
Perhaps what I'm actually asking is: as long as they include a
prominent version of an official mark, could they also have a more
creative modification of the mark included in the work? As an example,
if I were to create a poster that:
- showed a gorgeous vista of a meadow and forest beneath a blue sky
with fluffy white clouds
- had a photoshopped cloud to look like the firefox logo silhouette
- had a slogan like "IT'S A BEAUTIFUL, WIDE WORLD" at the bottom
- had an official "Mozilla Firefox" wordmark & logo less prominently
in the bottom right corner
As I interpret this document, I would run afoul of our policy. I do
not think that it should, and in fact, think that it limits the
ability of people to creatively express what Firefox means to them and
spread our message.
cheers,
mike
Mike Shaver
> Perhaps what I'm actually asking is: as long as they include a prominent
> version of an official mark, could they also have a more creative
> modification of the mark included in the work? As an example, if I were to
> create a poster that:
>
> - showed a gorgeous vista of a meadow and forest beneath a blue sky with
> fluffy white clouds
> - had a photoshopped cloud to look like the firefox logo silhouette
> - had a slogan like "IT'S A BEAUTIFUL, WIDE WORLD" at the bottom
> - had an official "Mozilla Firefox" wordmark & logo less prominently in the
> bottom right corner
>
> As I interpret this document, I would run afoul of our policy. I do not
> think that it should, and in fact, think that it limits the ability of
> people to creatively express what Firefox means to them and spread our
> message.
I understand why you say that, but I think it has to run afoul of our
self-serve policy -- the alternative is that people can make it look
like we've produced or endorsed just about anything.
(Imagine that same thing on a page with "Firefox for Cloud Computing"
with a pile of adware shovelled into a custom installer, f.e. -- we
need recourse against it, which means that our trademark policy can't
permit it.)
Your original suggestion of fast response to submitted requests for
use is the best way forward here, I think.
Mike
fantasai
Or imagine just the firefox logo in its official format with "Firefox for
Cloud Computing" with a pile of adware... Modification of the logo isn't
the problem in your example, the use of it is.
~fantasai
Mike Shaver
> Or imagine just the firefox logo in its official format with "Firefox for
> Cloud Computing" with a pile of adware... Modification of the logo isn't
> the problem in your example, the use of it is.
Yes, I agree, and I don't think that modifications of the logo are --
in the general case -- different enough to be safer.
Mike
Mike Beltzner
Firefox 3 t-shirt contest where some of the more creative designs were
rejected for no other reason than our unwillingness to allow marks that
didn't adhere to those guidelines.
If we're saying we'll allow exceptions, I think I'm satisfied. I'd be more
satisfied if the onus was on us to tell people that they can't do something
instead of requiring that people ask us in advance, but practically
speaking, I bet that'll net out to the same thing.
cheers,
mike
Mike
fantasai
> These arguments are compelling. I'm perhaps reacting to memories of the
> Firefox 3 t-shirt contest where some of the more creative designs were
> rejected for no other reason than our unwillingness to allow marks that
> didn't adhere to those guidelines.
Can we allow modifications of the logo but restrict them to the same
usage limitations as the original? Because people are going to want
to create fanart, and I don't see that as a bad thing if it's used
appropriately for enjoyment and advocacy.
~fantasai
Catherine Brady
updated trademark policy and those who shared their thoughts and
comments. All of the comments led us to further analyze the policy and
our assumptions, which, in turn, led to further improvements.
I�d like to address two main requested changes that we did not
incorporate at this time:
1. Modified Logos. As mentioned in my prior comment, it�s important
that our marks remain (a) distinctive, (2) recognizable, and (3)
undiluted. A blanket policy allowing modifications may lead to consumer
confusion and dilution. In addition, allowing a blanket right to modify
our logos will compromise our abilities to defend the marks.
2. Use of High Resolution (or vector) Files. We are in the process of
working out the best way to allow access to the vector files, which may
require additional terms. Once we have finalized how it will be done,
we will incorporate the new process into the trademark policy. In the
meantime, any requests should be sent to us and we�ll try to accommodate
such requests.
Please take a look at the following documents:
1. Updated Trademark Policy (a clean version incorporating all the
proposed changes) �
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Legal:Mozilla_Trademark_Policy/2009-06-26_Draft
2. Redline of the Updated Trademark Policy marked to show all the
changes from the last draft -
https://wiki.mozilla.org/File:2009-06-26-trademark-policy-diff.pdf
If we do not receive any additional comments by June 30th, we will
consider this the new updated Trademark Policy and it will be posted to
our website.
Mike Shaver
> First, I’d like to thank everyone who took the time to review the updated
> trademark policy and those who shared their thoughts and comments. All of
> the comments led us to further analyze the policy and our assumptions,
> which, in turn, led to further improvements.
The system works!
One question: why do we forbid redistribution of Firefox if money is
being charged for it? On its face, that would seem to indicate that
if a Linux distribution used the unmodified version of Firefox, rather
than a changed one, it wouldn't be allowed to charge for its retail
version.
But also, more narrowly, there has long been a cottage industry of
people distributing open source software (chiefly Linux distributions;
http://osdisc.com is one good example) for reasonable rates. I don't
know why we wouldn't want people putting $3 convenience media at the
check-out of a supermarket, or putting Firefox on a USB stick that
they sell.
Would an OEM distributing an unmodified Firefox on their computers,
for which they no doubt change money, also fall afoul of this
restriction?
Generally, I'm not sure that the non-commercial restriction here is in
line with our values, as expressed in our other policies. I imagine
that it's intended to prevent (or provide recourse against, more
likely) people taking advantage of others' naivete to charge them $50
for a download, but much as I find that distasteful as well I'm not
sure we want to be in the business of regulating that market.
Mike
Gervase Markham
> If we do not receive any additional comments by June 30th, we will
> consider this the new updated Trademark Policy and it will be posted to
> our website.
Hi Catherine,
As I recently discussed with another member of your team, I also share
Mike's concerns about the "without charge" clause.
We are trying to balance two important concerns here. The first is that
some unscrupulous people are "selling" Firefox downloads by pretending
they are us, and taking a subscription from people's bank accounts
monthly. We get regular email from people who find they've been duped in
this way. (Although it would be interesting to know how many we do get,
as they come to different email addresses.)
Here's one which is currently the only ad displayed when you do a Google
search for Firefox: http://www.org-eng.info/
They probably get away with it because they call it "Foxfire" and
misspell "Mozzila". If you fill in their form, you are given the
following "subscription" options:
(*) Get 3 Years Unlimited Software Download & Support ONLY £9.98/year
( ) 2 Years Full & Unlimited Access for only £0.99/month
( ) 1 Year Full & Unlimited Access for only £1.49/month (£17.88)
[X] Give me XP Tools to make my computer & Internet faster. Only £1.49/month
[X] I want to remove adware and spyware - Give me SpyRemover for only
£1.49/Month
If you just clicked through this, you'd be on the hook for £137.58, or
$227, over 3 years. Furthermore, on the "fill in your CC details" page,
there's another checkbox, checked by default, which puts you on the hook
for another £9.88 per month, or £355 ($587) over 3 years! It's highly
debatable whether the service they provide (which does apparently
include support of some sort) would be worth the money. These guys
undoubtedly have sleazy business methods.
On the other hand, lots of people do things which are technically
selling Firefox - Linux distributions, osdisc.com, and so on. They are
members of our free software/open source community, and we want to
encourage them. And "No commercial use" is not seen as properly free/open.
Can we find a way to legally split the difference? If not, which side do
we come down on? Is the trademark policy the only way we can go after
bad actors? For example, in the past, we've tried to cut off their
publicity supply through a close relationship with Google and other
possible advertising sites. But, as you can see from the above, if they
misspell our trademarks, it might be harder.
Secondly, I'm not quite sure what this means: "Any goodwill generated by
the use of any Mozilla Marks inures to the benefit of Mozilla."
If I read it straight, it makes me think you are trying to legally force
people to feel good about someone else...
Gerv
Catherine Brady
someone from charging for one of our products - as long as they don't
use our trademarks. However, if they want to use our trademarks, there
can be no charge for the software. This position is not new for us.
We've just made it more explicit. Gerv's example perfectly illustrates
why we have this policy.
In our enforcement efforts, depending on the facts, we've allowed
persons to charge a minimal amount for the medium (e.g., $3 for disc
including shipping and handling vs. $30). In some instances, we've
asked them to place a prominent notice, and link, that the software is
available without charge from our website. The OEM selling a computer
on which Firefox is pre-loaded would be the same thing. The consumer is
paying for the computer, not Firefox.
Given the need to defend our marks, I think that any exceptions to our
policy are best handled on a case by case basis since each request is so
fact dependent.
2. Fraudulent Advertising Via Search Engines. This is an important
area to address and we've instituted a systematic process to file
reports with the major search engines and are working on improving this
process. As Gerv pointed out, many of the persons who are running these
ads just move on to another domain once one is shut down or buy
different ad words. So, we're working on the best way to address this
problem and trying out different options.
3. Goodwill. If the public likes a product, there is a certain amount
of goodwill that the public feels toward that product and associates
with that product's name, trademarks, and logos. That goodwill has a
worth, which is not just monetary, as the great Mozilla community
represents. The public's goodwill toward a product is a legally
recognized asset. Even though we're allowing third parties to use our
trademarks to promote our products, we've simply clarified that any
goodwill that arises from that use inures to Mozilla.
Thank you all, once again, for taking the time to read and comment on
this updated policy. The next step will be posting the finalized
trademark policy to our websites.
Gervase Markham
> 1. No Charge for Trademarked Firefox. There is no prohibition keeping
> someone from charging for one of our products - as long as they don't
> use our trademarks.
While true, that's irrelevant to our discussion, which is about people
charging for unchanged binaries - which do, of course, include the
trademarks. (In fact, it's forbidden to remove them.)
> However, if they want to use our trademarks, there
> can be no charge for the software. This position is not new for us.
Neither of these sentences is an argument in favour of the policy :-)
One is a restatement of it, and the other is argumentum ad antiquitatem.
> We've just made it more explicit. Gerv's example perfectly illustrates
> why we have this policy.
But what about my examples of people who are disadvantaged by it?
> In our enforcement efforts, depending on the facts, we've allowed
> persons to charge a minimal amount for the medium (e.g., $3 for disc
> including shipping and handling vs. $30).
But I think it's important to discuss the principle before getting into
the practicalities. Is it a) consistent with our values, and b)
permissible under trademark law that we should be regulating what people
can charge for a copy of Firefox (absent other factors such as them
pretending to be us)?
Addressing point a) first: the very first line of the Open Source
Definition is:
"1. Free Redistribution. The license shall not restrict any party from
selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate
software distribution containing programs from several different sources."
http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd
The Free Software Definition similarly says:
"Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without
modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to
anyone anywhere."
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Now, trademarks are about quality and source, and so IMO it's reasonable
to require that the trademarks are not used if modifications are made.
(The permissibility of that sort of 'name-change' clause, to which this
is analogous, is given later in the OSD.) But I don't think it therefore
follows that it's necessarily reasonable to require that the trademarks
are not used if a fee is charged. Trademarks are not about price.
To point b): the First Sale doctrine is relevant here. Because software
can be reproduced at near zero cost, and that we are transferring copies
to other people also at zero cost, I agree that we cannot apply it
blindly. But the principle, to my mind, is that once people have a copy
of something, they can dispose of that copy as they see fit - including
selling it for $1,000,000, if they can find someone willing to pay that
price. Given that all copies are identical, and that several
place-to-place "copies" are made of a file even during a single download
process from our servers, it makes no sense to legally differentiate in
terms of "quality" between a copy acquired directly from us and a
bit-for-bit identical copy acquired from a third party.
> Given the need to defend our marks, I think that any exceptions to our
> policy are best handled on a case by case basis since each request is so
> fact dependent.
Why is preventing people charging a necessary component of defending our
marks? Preventing people passing themselves off as MoFo/MoCo clearly is
a necessary component, but that's a different thing. If the software is
unchanged, there is no "shoddy/counterfeit goods"-style problem of quality.
I'm not happy about the activity of scuzzballs like I quoted in my
previous post, but I'm unhappy because of their misleading statements,
not because they are selling Firefox. All truly free markets involve
free exchanges between buyer and seller such that both think themselves
better off. In some cases, the seller benefits from ignorance on the
part of the buyer. I get my bicycle repaired by a bike shop because I
don't have the skill to do it myself. This ignorance does not mean the
bike shop is exploiting me, because we both know what we are doing. And
this is true for many people who would be caught be a "no selling
Firefox" rule.
> Thank you all, once again, for taking the time to read and comment on
> this updated policy. The next step will be posting the finalized
> trademark policy to our websites.
I don't think the discussion is finished yet...
Gerv
Mitchell Baker
A couple of separable issues.
1. Including firefox (with trademark) in a larger product and charging
for something, like the aggregate piece or services or subscription.
2. Charging for Firefox itself. The Free Software document you cite
does *not* to my mind allow this. It allows charging for Distribution.
And everything I know, including the one or two conversations I've
ever had with RMS are that this is precise language -- he talked about
the cost of the media and shipping and such. So I've always thought
that it was clear that this means one *cannot* charge for the free
software itself. I don't see that the OSD states a principle re
allowing charging for a component; it's the aggregate.
3. The practical issues of separating the two.
I need to run out now, so will return to this later today.
Mitchell
Mike Shaver
> On 30/06/09 22:50, Catherine Brady wrote:
>> However, if they want to use our trademarks, there
>> can be no charge for the software. This position is not new for us.
>
> Neither of these sentences is an argument in favour of the policy :-) One is
> a restatement of it, and the other is argumentum ad antiquitatem.
While I share your position on the issue of charging money for Firefox
distribution, and quite enjoyed reading your message, I think
"argumentum ad antiquitatem" is entirely appropriate here: the
revisions proposed to the trademark policy don't add this restriction,
they merely clarify it. So I think that it's fine to publish these
revisions, which IMO substantially improve the document and policy
both, even if there are further changes to our policy that some of us
(notably, both you and I :) ) would like to see made.
Mike
Gervase Markham
> 1. Including firefox (with trademark) in a larger product and charging
> for something, like the aggregate piece or services or subscription.
>
>
> 2. Charging for Firefox itself. The Free Software document you cite does
> *not* to my mind allow this. It allows charging for Distribution. And
> everything I know, including the one or two conversations I've ever had
> with RMS are that this is precise language -- he talked about the cost
> of the media and shipping and such.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html :
"Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU project is that you
should not charge money for distributing copies of software, or that you
should charge as little as possible - just enough to cover the cost.
Actually we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as
much as they wish or can. If this seems surprising to you, please read
on. ... Free programs are sometimes distributed gratis, and sometimes
for a substantial price. Often the same program is available in both
ways from different places. ... You can charge nothing, a penny, a
dollar, or a billion dollars. It's up to you, and the marketplace, so
don't complain to us if nobody wants to pay a billion dollars for a copy."
> So I've always thought that it was
> clear that this means one *cannot* charge for the free software itself.
> I don't see that the OSD states a principle re allowing charging for a
> component; it's the aggregate.
But are these two situations actually separable anyway?
The FSF's comments on the SIL Open Font Licence (which match the ones I
made on the discussion list when we were drafting it) say:
"Its only unusual requirement is that fonts be distributed with some
computer program, rather than alone. Since a simple Hello World program
will satisfy the requirement, it is harmless."
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#Fonts
I'm not sure there's a clear boundary between situations 1 and 2. You
can turn charging for a piece of software into charging for an aggregate
simply by adding a compiled "Hello, World".
Also, if all we are preventing is "charging for Firefox itself", as
opposed to charging for subscriptions, support, aggregates etc. then we
won't actually be capturing any of the sleazeballs anyway. The company I
refer to further up the thread does have small grey text which says
"we're only pointing you to free stuff", and the charges are all
subscriptions, not charges for the software itself which is used as the
lure.
Gerv
Gervase Markham
> While I share your position on the issue of charging money for Firefox
> distribution, and quite enjoyed reading your message, I think
> "argumentum ad antiquitatem" is entirely appropriate here: the
> revisions proposed to the trademark policy don't add this restriction,
> they merely clarify it.
Point taken. It's entirely reasonable to say "this isn't a change to our
policy, and so discussion of it shouldn't hold up implementing the new one".
My point was that "this is what we've done in the past" isn't a good
argument by itself for it being what we should continue to do.
Gerv
Patrick Finch
Anyone can redistribute the software though, can't they? They just
cannot use someone else's trademark, which is normal.
Java is Free software (and blessed as such by RMS), but one cannot
distribute "Java" without a license from Sun...
Patrick
Harvey Anderson
> >https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
As to the update for the TM doc - which continues the existing policy
w/clarifications, it seems like we're ok with moving forward for now,
but alas the inquiry does not end there. Gerv has raised a legitimate
and broader question of "what should the policy be" relative to the
distribution of free software for a fee. While I do believe as a
purely legal matter trademark law is broad enough to support license
conditions in a general sense be it price, channel, quality,
manufacture technique, testing, etc.; it is an entirely different
question as to what those license terms should be. It seems the
analysis begins with the precondition that no term should contravene
the characteristics that make it free software. As I understand Gerv's
position - the analysis would end there as he would conclude that the
outer bound for TM law is tied to modifications and conveying origin.
Gerv - correct me if I've misunderstood your position. As to the
references cited, I'm not sure how to interpret the guidance in view
of these facts and need to consider it further, but I get your point
completely and we should work through this.
The original intent was and remains to protect consumers from
fraudulent practices where we can. No doubt there will always be
those actors who find ways to technically comply but still engage in
scams. While no policy by itself will solve the problem entirely, and
there are practical limitations as both you and Mike have observed, I
do think there is value in making it incrementally better if we can.
harvey
Gervase Markham
> Anyone can redistribute the software though, can't they? They just
> cannot use someone else's trademark, which is normal.
>
> Java is Free software (and blessed as such by RMS), but one cannot
> distribute "Java" without a license from Sun...
The Mozilla source code is unambiguously free software. But the question
is whether the Firefox binary builds which we distribute under the MPL,
and therefore for which we are implicitly saying "these are free
software" (as the MPL is a free software licence) are in fact so. In
other words, are we giving with one hand (the copyright licence) and
taking away some of those rights with the other (the trademark licence)?
So when RMS says "Java is free software", he could well mean that it's
free software in the sense that the Mozilla source code unambiguously is.
Secondly, AIUI, Sun's trademark license for usage of the Java brand
insists that all implementations be "compatible". In other words, their
requirement is that you can't modify it in an incompatible way, which is
even looser than "can't modify it at all", which is what we are
(entirely reasonably) saying. I don't believe that, once that hurdle is
crossed, Sun imposes distribution restrictions on their or other
people's shippings or redistributions of Java technology.
However, even if they did, it wouldn't convince me it was a good thing
to do :-)
Gerv
Gervase Markham
> As to the update for the TM doc - which continues the existing policy
> w/clarifications, it seems like we're ok with moving forward for now,
Sure :-)
> but alas the inquiry does not end there. Gerv has raised a legitimate
> and broader question of "what should the policy be" relative to the
> distribution of free software for a fee. While I do believe as a
> purely legal matter trademark law is broad enough to support license
> conditions in a general sense be it price, channel, quality,
> manufacture technique, testing, etc.; it is an entirely different
> question as to what those license terms should be. It seems the
> analysis begins with the precondition that no term should contravene
> the characteristics that make it free software. As I understand Gerv's
> position - the analysis would end there as he would conclude that the
> outer bound for TM law is tied to modifications and conveying origin.
Well, there's the actual outer bound of TM law as it stands (which will
vary from country to country), and where I think the outer bound should
be :-) But yes, my position is that if you take what you attempt to do
using TM law beyond modifications/origin/reputation into control of
methods or styles of distribution then you start restricting freedoms
that free software should have.
> The original intent was and remains to protect consumers from
> fraudulent practices where we can. No doubt there will always be
> those actors who find ways to technically comply but still engage in
> scams. While no policy by itself will solve the problem entirely, and
> there are practical limitations as both you and Mike have observed, I
> do think there is value in making it incrementally better if we can.
Amen to all that.
Gerv
Patrick Finch
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gervase Markham" <ge...@mozilla.org>
To: gover...@lists.mozilla.org
Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2009 10:56:14 AM GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal
Subject: Re: Proposed Revisions to Mozilla Trademark Policy
It's a little more controversial than that - you need to license a test kit from Sun to prove your compatabtility, which is free and Free to those using Sun's code base (OpenJDK) but not others (notably Apache's Harmony). But that's another story...
>However, even if they did, it wouldn't convince me it was a good thing
>to do :-)
Quite - and I am sure you would not be alone. I was just noting that software being "Free" can be considered to be a fairly different topic to the trademark policy that you distribute your build under, which is to offer no comment on the virtue of the trademark policy itself.
Patrick
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
gover...@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance