Official Firefox binaries non-free

[Alex Hudson]

On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 23:51 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > That trade mark (FIREFOX) isn't a trade mark on a web browser, so I
> > don't see how your point stands - I think you're confused with tort law
> > on passing-off, which is different. You still seem to be talking about
> > the US situation, too. [...]
> 
> I can't remember exactly what it's a trademark for, but I'm pretty
> sure it's not a trademark for a filename.

That's completely irrelevant. There isn't any such thing as a 'trademark
for a filename' - you seem to be saying that trademarks apply to
objects. Trademarks identify the *source* of the goods; they're applied
to things to mark their origin.

I will probably write a basic primer on trademarks at some point,
because even though I'm not terribly conversant with US law I do at
least know how they function. I seem to keep having this same
conversation with people.... :/

> Sadly, US law is the main concern for debian on this one,
> as both Mozilla Foundation and debian's holding corporation
> (Software in the Public Interest, Inc) are US-based.

Again, that's not relevant either. The law applicable is that of the
country of distribution; US law doesn't get exported everywhere just
because someone happens to have their HQ over there.

MoFo at least are taking an interest in all areas; they wouldn't have
licenced the firefox mark otherwise. I would encourage Debian not to be
complacent either. The danger isn't financial per se - Debian couldn't
be sued without doing something seriously negligent - but it would be
quite easy to get distribution of Debian stopped in the UK by taking out
an injunction.

> > As I already noted; no, they can't - at least, not in the UK - as far as
> > firefox is concerned. They are licencees.
> 
> Who do they license from?

According to "About Mozilla Firefox", "Some trademark (sic) rights used
under licence from The Charlton Company". They are talking about a UK
trademark application from '95, which has priority in this country.

> Who do we LART to get them to stop enforcing the trademark against
> free software distributors?

The Charlton Company would be the ones enforcing the UK mark, you would
need to contact them. I would suggest that is a thoroughly bad idea,
however.

> Even so, all remember, Mozilla is far better than Netscape, for us.

I think you've hit the nail exactly on the head. It's clear that there
are problems here, but the best way forward is to solve them by working
with Mozilla. Forking - especially a complex piece of software like
Mozilla - should be last resort.

Cheers,

Alex.