Comments on: Firefox not free? http://justinhartman.com/2006/12/17/fire-fox-not-free/ Living Life. Running a Startup. Loving Technology. Sun, 11 Sep 2011 01:25:20 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Justin Hartman http://justinhartman.com/2006/12/17/fire-fox-not-free/comment-page-1/#comment-2970 Justin Hartman Sun, 28 Jan 2007 16:26:56 +0000 http://justinhartman.com/2006/12/17/fire-fox-not-free/#comment-2970 There is a huge flame-war going on at the moment on the Debian mailing lists about this topic. However what is interesting is the reasoning behind the move away from Firefox which I post verbatim below.<br><br>On the Mozilla side:<br><br>- using the Firefox name and logo requires the distributor to use the binaries provided by Mozilla<br>- "security" support is provided by shipping new upstream releases, with zero help to distributors for backporting<br>- Debian's permission to use the Firefox name (which was given previously) was revoked<br>- the Firefox artwork is non-free<br><br>On the Debian side:<br><br>- Debian policy requires that all packages be built on Debian autobuilders (there are rare exceptions, but they are extremely few)<br>- Debian policy requires not shipping new upstream versions in stable releases (that means backporting security fixes)<br>- Debian requires that security updates come from the Debian security team (this creates a problem even if Debian acquiesced and released the binaries from mozilla, since the first security patch would create an unresolvable conflict)<br>- Debian requires that everything shipped in main be DFSG compliant (the Mozilla Firefox artwork is not) There is a huge flame-war going on at the moment on the Debian mailing lists about this topic. However what is interesting is the reasoning behind the move away from Firefox which I post verbatim below.

On the Mozilla side:

- using the Firefox name and logo requires the distributor to use the binaries provided by Mozilla
- “security” support is provided by shipping new upstream releases, with zero help to distributors for backporting
- Debian's permission to use the Firefox name (which was given previously) was revoked
- the Firefox artwork is non-free

On the Debian side:

- Debian policy requires that all packages be built on Debian autobuilders (there are rare exceptions, but they are extremely few)
- Debian policy requires not shipping new upstream versions in stable releases (that means backporting security fixes)
- Debian requires that security updates come from the Debian security team (this creates a problem even if Debian acquiesced and released the binaries from mozilla, since the first security patch would create an unresolvable conflict)
- Debian requires that everything shipped in main be DFSG compliant (the Mozilla Firefox artwork is not)

]]> By: Justin Hartman http://justinhartman.com/2006/12/17/fire-fox-not-free/comment-page-1/#comment-55 Justin Hartman Sun, 28 Jan 2007 09:26:56 +0000 http://justinhartman.com/2006/12/17/fire-fox-not-free/#comment-55 There is a huge flame-war going on at the moment on the Debian mailing lists about this topic. However what is interesting is the reasoning behind the move away from Firefox which I post verbatim below. On the Mozilla side: - using the Firefox name and logo requires the distributor to use the binaries provided by Mozilla - "security" support is provided by shipping new upstream releases, with zero help to distributors for backporting - Debian's permission to use the Firefox name (which was given previously) was revoked - the Firefox artwork is non-free On the Debian side: - Debian policy requires that all packages be built on Debian autobuilders (there are rare exceptions, but they are extremely few) - Debian policy requires not shipping new upstream versions in stable releases (that means backporting security fixes) - Debian requires that security updates come from the Debian security team (this creates a problem even if Debian acquiesced and released the binaries from mozilla, since the first security patch would create an unresolvable conflict) - Debian requires that everything shipped in main be DFSG compliant (the Mozilla Firefox artwork is not) There is a huge flame-war going on at the moment on the Debian mailing lists about this topic. However what is interesting is the reasoning behind the move away from Firefox which I post verbatim below.

On the Mozilla side:

- using the Firefox name and logo requires the distributor to use the binaries provided by Mozilla
- “security” support is provided by shipping new upstream releases, with zero help to distributors for backporting
- Debian’s permission to use the Firefox name (which was given previously) was revoked
- the Firefox artwork is non-free

On the Debian side:

- Debian policy requires that all packages be built on Debian autobuilders (there are rare exceptions, but they are extremely few)
- Debian policy requires not shipping new upstream versions in stable releases (that means backporting security fixes)
- Debian requires that security updates come from the Debian security team (this creates a problem even if Debian acquiesced and released the binaries from mozilla, since the first security patch would create an unresolvable conflict)
- Debian requires that everything shipped in main be DFSG compliant (the Mozilla Firefox artwork is not)

]]> By: bropa http://justinhartman.com/2006/12/17/fire-fox-not-free/comment-page-1/#comment-2969 bropa Tue, 09 Jan 2007 22:44:04 +0000 http://justinhartman.com/2006/12/17/fire-fox-not-free/#comment-2969 Well this makes absolute sense if you think about it for 2 seconds. If Mozilla did not trademark the name Firefox it would mean that I could create any other browser and also call it Firefox. Imagine all the Firefox competitors releasing browser named Firefox. It would be the same as Create releasing a iRiver but call them iPod's?<br><br>It is Debian's strict rules that are to blame here and not Mozilla.<br><br>"Furthermore, Mozilla claims that if Debian runs any patches to the version of Firefox included with Debian distros, it has to run them by Mozilla first for approval." <br><br>That is because they have quality ensuring procedures, anyone can change Firefox but if they allowed you to change and release under the Firefox name and at your own free will, then Microsoft could grab a copy, cripple it and then release it on the Internet. Can you see where that would lead? Well this makes absolute sense if you think about it for 2 seconds. If Mozilla did not trademark the name Firefox it would mean that I could create any other browser and also call it Firefox. Imagine all the Firefox competitors releasing browser named Firefox. It would be the same as Create releasing a iRiver but call them iPod's?

It is Debian's strict rules that are to blame here and not Mozilla.

“Furthermore, Mozilla claims that if Debian runs any patches to the version of Firefox included with Debian distros, it has to run them by Mozilla first for approval.”

That is because they have quality ensuring procedures, anyone can change Firefox but if they allowed you to change and release under the Firefox name and at your own free will, then Microsoft could grab a copy, cripple it and then release it on the Internet. Can you see where that would lead?

]]> By: bropa http://justinhartman.com/2006/12/17/fire-fox-not-free/comment-page-1/#comment-33 bropa Tue, 09 Jan 2007 15:44:04 +0000 http://justinhartman.com/2006/12/17/fire-fox-not-free/#comment-33 Well this makes absolute sense if you think about it for 2 seconds. If Mozilla did not trademark the name Firefox it would mean that I could create any other browser and also call it Firefox. Imagine all the Firefox competitors releasing browser named Firefox. It would be the same as Create releasing a iRiver but call them iPod's? It is Debian's strict rules that are to blame here and not Mozilla. "Furthermore, Mozilla claims that if Debian runs any patches to the version of Firefox included with Debian distros, it has to run them by Mozilla first for approval." That is because they have quality ensuring procedures, anyone can change Firefox but if they allowed you to change and release under the Firefox name and at your own free will, then Microsoft could grab a copy, cripple it and then release it on the Internet. Can you see where that would lead? Well this makes absolute sense if you think about it for 2 seconds. If Mozilla did not trademark the name Firefox it would mean that I could create any other browser and also call it Firefox. Imagine all the Firefox competitors releasing browser named Firefox. It would be the same as Create releasing a iRiver but call them iPod’s?

It is Debian’s strict rules that are to blame here and not Mozilla.

“Furthermore, Mozilla claims that if Debian runs any patches to the version of Firefox included with Debian distros, it has to run them by Mozilla first for approval.”

That is because they have quality ensuring procedures, anyone can change Firefox but if they allowed you to change and release under the Firefox name and at your own free will, then Microsoft could grab a copy, cripple it and then release it on the Internet. Can you see where that would lead?

]]>