mozilla.org artwork
Ben Bucksch
mozilla.org logo for Beonex. Dawn also kindly helped me out with a new
one, so this was no issue. I will stop using the mozilla.org logo for
Beonex.
That makes me think:
What about third-party Mozilla binaries, like the ones provided by
Debian or Redhat? Theoretically, this situation is not different from
mine: A person or organization not associated with mozilla.org and
without approval of mozilla.org creates a binary with the mozilla.org
logo. The binary contains custom changes, which are published as Open
Source, but not included in the binaries or CVS from mozilla.org. IANAL,
but Redhat and Beonex seem to be in the same situation. Only that Beonex
doesn't use the name "Mozilla" and used a slightly altered logo, which
makes this case IMO *less* worse.
Just trying to understand...
Ben Bucksch
> Debian or Redhat? Theoretically, this situation is not different from
> mine
> [...]
> Just trying to understand...
Re-reading it, the post sounds like a hidden complaint. It isn't. I'm
just trying to understand where the concrete difference is, because I
see none.
Gervase Markham
> mozilla.org logo for Beonex.
As a related observation, it seems very odd to me that Netscape chose to
open the source of its entire Communicator code base, and set up a
"Mozilla" project to look after it, but didn't give the project rights to
the cute green Mozilla graphics...
Is this the same issue, or a separate ("mozilla.org wants to keep control
of the red lizard") one?
Gerv
Ben Bucksch
> As a related observation, it seems very odd to me that Netscape chose to
> open the source of its entire Communicator code base, and set up a
> "Mozilla" project to look after it, but didn't give the project rights to
> the cute green Mozilla graphics...
Me too. I really like it, by far better than the new, red one.
Can you guess how much I would have liked to use
<http://home.snafu.de/tilman/mozilla/sculptor.gif> (Mozilla building a
"B") for the preview and development versions of Beonex Communicator?
> Is this the same issue, or a separate ("mozilla.org wants to keep control
> of the red lizard") one?
Mitchell Baker told me that Netscape-the-business, not mozilla.org,
holds the copyright to it.
Matthew Thomas
>
> Gervase Markham wrote:
> >
> > As a related observation, it seems very odd to me that Netscape
> > chose to open the source of its entire Communicator code base, and
> > set up a "Mozilla" project to look after it, but didn't give the
> > project rights to the cute green Mozilla graphics...
Then why are the Open Directory Project allowed to use (and modify) it?
Since both are open-source projects, it seems strange that one is
allowed to use the green lizard and the other is not.
--
Matthew `mpt' Thomas, Mozilla user interface QA
Mozilla UI decisions made within 48 hours, or the next one is free
Simon P. Lucy
Ben Bucksch wrote:
>
> Gervase Markham wrote:
> >
> > As a related observation, it seems very odd to me that Netscape
> > chose to open the source of its entire Communicator code base, and
> > set up a "Mozilla" project to look after it, but didn't give the
> > project rights to the cute green Mozilla graphics...
>...
> Mitchell Baker told me that Netscape-the-business, not mozilla.org,
> holds the copyright to it.
Then why are the Open Directory Project allowed to use (and modify) it?
Since both are open-source projects, it seems strange that one is
allowed to use the green lizard and the other is not.
I would guess that the criteria go along the lines of , 'Is it a product or service that its advertising which is either in competition with us or could reflect upon us?'. If the answer is yes then they wouldn't want Netscape associated with it, regardless of how much source coincided. I think the original decision not to use the green original may have been a wish to draw a line under that history.
As for why Open Directory gets to use it its probably just the normal inconsistency of life.
I do think that distributors or modifiers of Mozilla should be able to use an authorised image from mozilla.org, the criteria would be adherence to the NPL/MPL licencing.
Simon
--
Matthew `mpt' Thomas, Mozilla user interface QA
Mozilla UI decisions made within 48 hours, or the next one is free
Beware knowledge cheaply gained
for in the spending of it you may pay more than its worth.
S. P. Lucy
Frank Hecker
> Gervase Markham wrote:
>
> > As a related observation, it seems very odd to me that Netscape chose to
> > open the source of its entire Communicator code base, and set up a
> > "Mozilla" project to look after it, but didn't give the project rights to
> > the cute green Mozilla graphics...
>
> Me too. I really like it, by far better than the new, red one.
In the initial days of the Mozilla project the www.mozilla.org site did
in fact use the original green lizard as part of the site banner. There
was no issue with Netscape not being willing to grant use of the green
lizard; in fact, the original mozilla.org site was basically created as
an offshoot of the existing Netscape developer relations site at
developer.netscape.com and reused a lot of Netscape artwork, including
the "starry sky" design used on Netscape web sites and product boxes at
the time.
To the best of my knowledge Jamie Zawinski was the person responsible
for abandoning use of the green lizard and commissioning the "red
dinosaur" logo and associated artwork. I presume jwz did so in order to
create a separate brand image for the Mozilla project and distance it
from existing or historical Netscape products and web sites (although of
course jwz would die a thousand deaths before using a term like "brand
image" :-) I suspect another major factor was jwz's fondness for the
work of Shepard Fairey, the artist who created the mozilla.org artwork.
FWIW I agree with jwz that the Mozilla project was and is better off
with a new logo. I liked the green lizard and have lots of "Mozilla
wear" in the form of polo shirts, etc. However I believe the green
lizard was too closely identified with Netscape the company and with the
proprietary Netscape Navigator product, and that it was a good idea to
use another logo for Mozilla the open source project. (I also think the
red dinosaur is far superior to the green lizard as a work of graphic
design -- but to each their own taste.)
Frank
--
Frank Hecker work: http://www.collab.net/
fr...@collab.net home: http://www.hecker.org/
Gervase Markham
So, going back to the original question, what is mozilla.org's policy on
people using the name "Mozilla" and the artwork (built into binaries and
separate from it) when creating a derivative work? The MPL says nothing on
this issue, and I think it needs clarifying now.
Gerv
Mitchell Baker
mozilla.org needs a policy about use of these items. I've asked one of
the lawyers who helps mozilla.org to help prepare this, I expect to see
something quite soon. (I know a fair amount about trademark law, but a
policty should be prepared by someone actively working in this area, and
I no longer do.)
Here's what I'd like to see happen.
1. The name "Mozilla" and the orange dino artwork should not be "public
domain." People should not be able to use the Mozilla name or artwork
or name for things that have nothing to do with Mozilla, especially for
unrelated software. This would make things very confusing.
2. If the name and artwork are not "public domain" then it is
protectable under trademark/servicemark law. Trademark law has some
quirks about how trademarks should be treated and what people other than
the owner can do. (For example, when I was active in the area, U.S.
trademark law required that some sort of quality control be maintained
by the owner; I don't know if this has changed.) If these requirements
are not followed, it gets harder and harder to have the trademark mean
anything, and harder to stop someone who's doing lousy things with the mark.
3. The trademark policy for "Mozilla" and the orange dino should be
broad, flexible, and easily implemented. If possible, I want some
things to be self-implementing. That is, the website would have a set
of artwork and a set of things people can use the artwork for. I'm
sure there will also be uses that will require some involvement from
mozilla.org. Naturally, I'd like these to be as few as possible, as we
have plenty of other things to do. My understanding is that letting
people change the colors or style of trademarks/ logos is generally not
a good thing, so the policy probably won't allow this.
4. The policy should have enough teeth to actually protect "Mozilla"
and the artwork.
5. Frank points out the history of the orange dino. I too agree that
it is a good thing. I do not want to share a logo with Netscape, that
only adds confusion. However great the green mozilla is, use of the
same character for both Netscape and mozilla.org would be a bad thing.
Mitchell
Giovanni
> 5. Frank points out the history of the orange dino. I too agree that
> it is a good thing. I do not want to share a logo with Netscape, that
> only adds confusion. However great the green mozilla is, use of the
> same character for both Netscape and mozilla.org would be a bad thing.
I recently posted some artworks based on the green lizard in n.p.m.ui but
unfortunately I discovered mozilla.org isn't free to use the lizard.
I've just read the posts appeared in this thread a while ago about mozilla
artwork and I am quite surprised.
Ok, I can agree, using the same logo for both Netscape and Mozilla.org
is not a good idea but then using the name Mozilla.org, used for years as
Navigator's code-name wasn't a good idea, too.
Have we this name, haven't we? well, we should use the companion logo. Netscape
could transfer the copyright to Mozilla.org, this shouldn't be a big
problem given that it seems Ns doesn't use the lizard anymore.
My suggestion is: Why don't we use the lizard as logo for Mozilla the
software and the dinosaur as logo for Mozilla.org ?
Btw, given that, at the moment, any use of the lizard by the Mozilla
organization is a copyright violation we should remove it from the
current splash screen, as Ben Bucksch pointed out in n.p.m.ui,
as well as from http://www.mozilla.org/newlayout/,
http://www.mozilla.org/newlayout/team.html,
http://www.mozilla.org/newlayout/gecko.html
and probably from several other pages.
friendly
Giovanni
Matthew Thomas
>...
> I recently posted some artworks based on the green lizard in n.p.m.ui
> but unfortunately I discovered mozilla.org isn't free to use the
> lizard.
No you didn't. Ben Bucksch told you that mozilla.org wasn't free to use
the green lizard, and you believed him.
>...
> Btw, given that, at the moment, any use of the lizard by the Mozilla
> organization is a copyright violation
It's not. <http://deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=718496858>
> we should remove it from the
> current splash screen, as Ben Bucksch pointed out in n.p.m.ui,
> as well as from http://www.mozilla.org/newlayout/,
> http://www.mozilla.org/newlayout/team.html,
> http://www.mozilla.org/newlayout/gecko.html
> and probably from several other pages.
>...
Yeah, and good luck removing it from thousands of pages on
<http://dmoz.org/>, too.
Ben Bucksch
> Ben Bucksch told you that mozilla.org wasn't free to use
> the green lizard
And I repeated what Mitchell told me (if my memory serves me)...
Giovanni
_without_any_doubt_, if we can use the lizard.
Let's suppose we can use it, as it appears from what mpt says.
In order to make life easier for everyone interested in Mozilla
artwork we should specify logos for the different parts of the
Mozilla project.
These are my suggestions:
"Mozilla.org" - orange dinosaur
"Mozilla full package" - green lizard
"Mozilla browser" - steering wheel
"mozilla Mail & News" - mailbox
Giovanni
Henri Sivonen
<mitc...@mozilla.org> wrote:
> That is, the website would have a set
> of artwork and a set of things people can use the artwork for.
Things people might want to use the logos for:
* Products that contains Mozilla code
* Advertising of such products
* Documentation related to such products
* As illustrations articles (on whatever medium) covering Mozilla or
Mozilla-based products
* Wearable items (T-shirts etc.)
--
Henri Sivonen
hen...@clinet.fi
http://www.clinet.fi/~henris/