kanotix.com
Software - The end of Firefox in Debian?
clubex - 22.09.2006, 00:08 Uhr
Titel: The end of Firefox in Debian?
Just seen this:-
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugrepor ... bug=354622
Can Thunderbird be far behind?
jackiebrown - 22.09.2006, 01:24 Uhr
Titel: RE: The end of Firefox in Debian?
Well I am half way through (dinner time) but my respect for mozilla is wanning)
titan - 22.09.2006, 09:35 Uhr
Titel: Re: The end of Firefox in Debian?
clubex hat folgendes geschrieben::
Compelling reading, and I can see both points of view it will be interesting to see how it is resolved. I like and use Firefox but I will not be too bothered if it cannot be shipped with Debian. There are other alternatives Konq is getting better with each release. And I expect it will be available elsewhere although I don,t know whether I would want to use it. A Debian alternative version would mean a lot of work. Thunderbird is a non starter for me Kmail is far better.
It looks like Mozilla, now it has a strong following, is flexing its muscles to renage on a previous agreement.
slam - 22.09.2006, 10:31 Uhr
Titel: Re: The end of Firefox in Debian?
This discussion again shows how easy it is to start a project and create free and open source software, as long as it does not become popular worldwide. As soon as this happens, all big open source projects have been hit by trademark/copyright/licensing problems. Debian and Mozilla are both no exception to this. The two communities decided slightly different how to deal with these problems, and different traditions in development and management do add some pepper here.
Personally I really don't appreciate the direction copyright and trademark laws have moved world-wide. The wrong ones are protected now, and the ones who would need legal protection are hindered (just look at the very case, where two nice open source projects are hindered in co-operating). However, as long as we are where we are, we have to find our ways through this jungle.
I think the Debian community should stand with their principles and remove the name and logo from all mozilla products it distributes. One of the top priorities should be securing freedom, and we are not the marketing machine for the Mozilla Foundation. If they decided to create corporate value in trademarks and copyrights, I wish them great success - but Debian is the wrong partner to assist them in this task.
Greetings,
Chris
clubex - 22.09.2006, 11:53 Uhr
Titel:
To me the saddest aspect is that something which has
benifited both Debian and Mozilla should now seperate
them. Many M$ users had not even heard of Linux and
open source until Firefox was touted as a superior
alternative to IE. I hope that some sort of compromise
will eventually arise and draw Mozilla and Debian
together again and continue to benifit them both.
titan:
Yes thankfully we have many browser and mailer choices
within GNU/Linux. This episode might just stir up some
competition within the developer community and give us
worthy successors to Firefox and Thunderbird.
At least this dispute doesn't appear to affect the Gecko
engine which, if it did, would IMHO have a greater impact.
hubi - 22.09.2006, 13:34 Uhr
Titel:
thebrowserformerlyknownas-1.0.0.deb
Get sponsorship by Prince! 
hubi
kenyee - 22.09.2006, 14:49 Uhr
Titel:
Who was the mozilla guy who posted on the bug list....another useless lawyer? 
He's definitely not the technical type or he'd understand how Debian works...
Swynndla - 22.09.2006, 23:42 Uhr
Titel:
Teh Mozilla foundation is a company right? debian strives to be non-corporate. It doesn't surprise me that there is a conflict of interest.
ockham23 - 23.09.2006, 08:11 Uhr
Titel:
It's funny, but Debian users are a lot like those people who will only buy organic food. If a product is "tainted" because it doesn't comply with their set of very strict rules, they won't eat it. Even if they go hungry. 
hubi - 23.09.2006, 09:25 Uhr
Titel:
ockham23,
those b*st*rds (TM) are selling GM rice illegally in Europe, to stick with your comparison. But I don't get your comparison.
Debian applies changes in FF, and the MF does not like it. It's more like Mercedes not giving AMG the licence to call their tuned cars "Mercedes" and urge AMG to remove every Mercedes branding in the car. But Mercedes would not dream of doing that - for a good reason.
hubi
titan - 23.09.2006, 09:54 Uhr
Titel:
ockham23 hat folgendes geschrieben::
It's funny, but Debian users are a lot like those people who will only buy organic food. If a product is "tainted" because it doesn't comply with their set of very strict rules, they won't eat it. Even if they go hungry.
I assume you are jesting but the reality is two leading players in the open source community can't agree over trademark and logo issues. It is sad not funny. The DFSG is problematic but I think is the right direction for Debian, it will be interesting what the mainstream computer press say about Debian releasing without Firefox and probably Thunderbird. It can only be seen as an own goal for the community. I doubt it will affect anyone anyway as there will be a non branded Debian Firefox plus Mozila Firefox will be be available elsewhere.
Having read all the e-mails in the link Mozilla come accross to me as hard nosed and arrogant and very much like the response from a commercial software company so from your simile above, yes I might be going hungry
slam - 23.09.2006, 11:26 Uhr
Titel:
hubi hat folgendes geschrieben::
Debian applies changes in FF, and the MF does not like it. It's more like Mercedes not giving AMG the licence to call their tuned cars "Mercedes" and urge AMG to remove every Mercedes branding in the car. But Mercedes would not dream of doing that - for a good reason.hubi
Very nice - a perfect example of how to explain the situation to outsiders!
Greetings,
Chris
ockham23 - 23.09.2006, 12:01 Uhr
Titel:
It's more like AMG obtaining one Mercedes and making a hundred thousand "improved" copies of it. DaimlerChrysler would never allow that.
hubi - 23.09.2006, 12:36 Uhr
Titel:
Wait, until AMG got hold of the replicator known from Star Trek
iirc, Debian still can distribute whatever they want (that's the licence), but FF does not want the branding in it, because the MF regards the changes as a fork, as far as I understand the discussion on the mailing list.
hubi
ockham23 - 23.09.2006, 13:57 Uhr
Titel:
Zitat:
Wait, until AMG got hold of the replicator known from Star Trek
With respect to software and other digital content, the replicator has already become reality for all of us.
kenyee - 23.09.2006, 15:33 Uhr
Titel:
What does Debian change in FF? I thought it was just packaging it as a .deb so we can do the usual apt-get stuff?
hubi - 23.09.2006, 15:57 Uhr
Titel:
In this thread there is a link to the discussion on the mailing-list. It's about backporting and patching.
kelmo - 23.09.2006, 17:44 Uhr
Titel:
This bears similarities with cdrecord and Mr Schilling
DeepDayze - 23.09.2006, 23:12 Uhr
Titel:
yup a scary parallel to that, kelmo.
DeepDayze - 23.09.2006, 23:13 Uhr
Titel:
Also I think this is a tempest in a teapot...Debian maintainers just simply repackaged the browser into a deb
h2 - 23.09.2006, 23:45 Uhr
Titel:
deepdayze, no, they don't, they change the code to eliminate certain 'features' that make mozilla products incompatible with debian security etc, the self updater for example if I remember right. Mozilla has said over and over that they don't really care about this problem, so debian has to fix the stuff, they have to port back security updates to older but still supported browsers which mozilla no longer supports, and much more.
While none of these changes in any way changes the core intent of the mozilla firefox branded browser, for some reason now firefox inc. has decided that it needs to apply these rules in a strict way, irregardless of intent etc. This is so typically corporate and annoying that it's sad, but that's how it goes when you start feeding at that trough. But by the rules as I read them in those exchanges, debian must not use either the firefox logo or brandname, which really sucks, firefox is a key part of what drives people to linux in the first place, so having to rename it is completely counterproductive.
And if firefox inc wasn't so damned annoying about this they could have figured out a good way to work out the problem, but they aren't.
The truly sad thing is that before, when Mozilla was at mozilla.org became mozilla.com, for some reason this was not a major issue. But now, suddenly, the dogs are sniffing around. It's too bad that corporate exposure has to spoil so much, this is only a sign of things to come in my opinion with the kernel as a whole if the key kernel maintainers don't stop being so damned corporation oriented.
If I were working for or at mozilla.com, I'd give some serious thought to just how this situation came to be, and how truly negative it actually is in larger senses, in terms of the open source landscape as a whole. Even though they are right within the letter of the law, they are 100% wrong in terms of the spirit of open source, which should be their primary goal. But I guess those millions of google ad dollars somehow have changed their perceptions a bit more then they would like to admit.
DeepDayze - 23.09.2006, 23:58 Uhr
Titel:
That's a very valid point, h2. I would like to see the Debian people sit down with the Mozilla people to work out the issues amicably. That would be the best route. Linux does not need all the bad blood right now.
h2 - 24.09.2006, 00:01 Uhr
Titel:
From what I read in those threads, mozilla has no interest in working this out at all. They only have an interest in protecting their trademarks. This is pathetic. Even though they give reasons like being able to defend against improper packagers of firefox, that's nonsense, if they wanted to create a different license for approved distros they could have easily done that, but what they really want to do is protect the income generating trademark.
That reeks to high heaven of corporate types having gained voice in mozilla.com, and I have a very good idea of who at least one source of the problem is, the head wags the tail...
DeepDayze - 24.09.2006, 03:10 Uhr
Titel:
I can also see the bickering within Debian itself as well...really bad
stryder - 24.09.2006, 03:31 Uhr
Titel:
What I can understand from mozilla's side is this:
Zitat:
The key problem is that there is code, and a build switch, that
explicitly handles the official branding/logos vs. the generic
name/artwork, and the package maintainer has chosen to break this switch
by making the unofficial side of the switch also label itself as
Firefox. I don't understand the motivations here, since the changelog I
saw isn't visible (packages.debian.org is still being weird) but the
gist of it was "avoid using the official branding switch" which seems
like one of those "makes it harder to undo" steps since people actually
would have to change code instead of build options to not be bound by
those terms. If users don't build with the official branding, its
because they are not accepting the terms of using things bound up in
trademark law. Doing things this way implies that only the artwork is
part of the official branding, as opposed to the name as well.
Debian maintainers have included a switch which strips out the copyrighted artwork of firefox (which is OK), while maintaining the name firefox (which is not OK). And the reason is because the artwork is copyrighted.
and so...
Zitat:
I've confirmed that this isn't acceptable usage of the trademark. If
you are going to use the Firefox name, you must also use the rest of the
branding.
>> Why can't you just use the official branding switch, anyway?
>>
>
> Because it uses graphics which have a non-free copyright license.
>
This is not something where you are free to pick what parts you want to
use. Either use the trademarked logos and name together or don't. The
name is trademarked in the exact same way as the logo, so I fail to see
how you can argue that one is acceptable to use and the other is not.
Maybe there's a technicality, but the name is just as free as the logos...
And mozilla also argues that debian logo and artwork are also copyrighted and if debian has no problems with that, why the double standards. Debian says that while debian has a loose policy with respect to copyright logos, debian maintainers may apply their own (stricter) standards.
And finally there is some issue about patches being approved by mozilla before they are shipped by debian, since usage of logo and name implies and endorsement by mozilla. But this is merely a problem of making an agreed-upon procedure work properly.
Personally I think that the discussion was interesting and very well conducted with both sides clearly recognizing the interests and concerns of the other. Seems to me that debian should just build a debian firefox based on firefox (call it debbiefox or something). Mozilla has no objections to that. Merely that if debian were to use the firefox name, they should use the firefox graphics as well, and if so, they should permit patches to be approved before being released.
DeepDayze - 24.09.2006, 13:08 Uhr
Titel:
or why not even Debian use the old code name "DeerPark", as that's what FF 1.5 was called during its development.
h2 - 24.09.2006, 21:33 Uhr
Titel:
The problem here is that firefox/mozilla.ORG set out to create a genuine alternative to MSIE. They succeeded in this. This was their core mission. And now normal users from many walks of life know and trust the name Firefox.
This is why I consider that exchange not reasonable at all, despite the illusion that the mozilla representative is trying to create. The bottom line is that mozilla.COM is now more concerned with corporate type issues like preserving trademarks than it is with its original core mission, which was 'get and spread firefox'.
I should have realized that this name change from .org to .com was far more meaningful than I wanted to believe.
For debian, or any other distro, that has not made significant core changes to firefox - which it hasn't, all the core features except self updater works - to now be forced to use another, unknown and unrecognized name for this globally known open source project is absolutely absurd.
This is like apache forcing you to use another name to use apache if you do any changes or modifications of hte code base.
The fact that the discussion is even happening shows how far down this slippery slope mozilla.com has fallen.
If the mozilla, firebird, phoenix, etc that I tested and used happily as a real alternative to MSIE as soon as it came out had pulled this kind of crap I seriously doubt I would have promoted it as heavily as I did.
Obviously, since mozilla has decided to pursue this nonsense in this way, debian will have no choice but to change the name, but you'll notice that the previous respresentative from mozilla had no problems being flexible and following reasonable common sense. So this decision comes from higher up, and it's guaranteed it's all about the money, no matter how they try to deny it.
And, by the way, the mozilla respresentative if full of it, he says that debian does the same thing, which is bull, you're using a distro branded with debian and it's not getting cease and desist orders.
This situation is total crap, pure and simple, and it's yet another example of how much and how fast money can corrupt things.
DeepDayze - 24.09.2006, 22:58 Uhr
Titel:
Very good post h2...seems whatever the corporates touch turns to CRAP. FF development model was working very very well until the suits came along. Now Mozilla.com is going to hop into bed with M$...another bad sign. Something needs to be done to prevent FF from falling into a morass
clubex - 24.09.2006, 23:27 Uhr
Titel:
I thought this might be of interest vis-a-vis Debian and
trademarks.
http://necrotic.deadbeast.net/~branden/ ... emark.html
NB:
"Firstly, disclaimers about unofficial status may be unnerving to users who aren't schooled in the vagaries of trademark law, in which — at least in the United States — you are expected to aggressively defend your mark lest you lose a future infringement case you bring against a well-heeled defendant. Users may mistake strident proclamations of unofficial, unendorsed status in a piece of software as a warning that it is unsuitable for use, or has known severe flaws."
and the link to Title 15, Chapter 22 of the United States Code.
It looks to me as if US law straitjackets either side of the dispute.
h2 - 24.09.2006, 23:36 Uhr
Titel:
linux is a trademark, registered, owned by Linus Torvalds.
Think about it. He has decided to own it but let it be used freely. This is a decision he made. Even though Linus is becoming increasingly disappointing in his position against the GPL 3, he is still better than what mozilla is doing.
If linus had enforced this trademark like mozilla is trying to do no altered kernel could ever be labelled linux, ever, anywhere, no matter how small the changes.
This is how you can see what total crap mozilla is spouting. This is a choice they are making, and the way they are trying to defend this choice is pathetic.
And the cause is that steady stream of google ad dollars mozilla.com is receiving. This issue never came up before that google money stream started. And you can see what nonsense the fundamental presumptions are by simply looking at other familiar branded items like the linux kernel, apache, and so on. The debian people are right to p*ssed off, this is total nonsense.
When somebody starts hiding behind the cloak of bad laws to defend their bad decisions that is a major warning sign. And corporate types are the last ones on Earth I'd expect to actually be honest about what the real cause of their decision making process is. Even to themselves. Happily there are exceptions to this, although unfortunately rare.
I'm seeing the same thing by the way happen on the linux kernel with Thorvald's position against the FSF and the GPL 3, same exact logic, same arguments, and the same cause.
stryder - 25.09.2006, 01:37 Uhr
Titel:
It seems to me that what mozilla is asking is simple: don't use our name without our logo/artwork. You are free to use both but not to use just one or the other. I think that's reasonable. I think what is free for me to use but not to own should be respected. But you may be right, h2, that this is merely the opening salvo for corporate mozilla to protect what they eventually want to monetize. And what they want to monetize will probably grow. That will be sad.
h2 - 25.09.2006, 01:45 Uhr
Titel:
stryder, that's not actually what they are saying at all. What they are saying is that you cannot use the firefox name OR icon/image if you have changed the firefox code in anyway. That's the core of the problem, and that's the decision firefox/mozilla made, that they did not need to make. That's why I gave the linux trademark as an example of a better way to handle that issue. In other words, let the name flow freely so it can spread.
And the previous mozilla rep had no problems being flexible and doing the right thing the right way.
In other words, firefox continues its windows centric, increasingly profitable path. So because windows uses the incredibly insecure binary installers, and almost all windows users just download the binary from mozilla.com, this issue doesn't come up at all for almost all windows firefox users. But it does come up for almost all primarily source based package systems like apt, rpm, etc, where the code is modified to fit into the packaging system and distro paths, security model, etc.
To make it clear: debian could package in one directory the files for mozilla/firefox, make that a deb, and have it install unchanged, and they could then legally use both the firefox name and image. The reason debian does not use the image but does use the name is that the previous mozilla rep did the right thing and cut debian some slack on this stuff. So now what mozilla is saying is: no more slack, either use unmodified code, which debian can't do, or stop using BOTH the name and the image.
However, debian won't use images that have this type of trademark restriction on them in the first place, which I think is why debian didn't use the image either in the first place. Confusing situation I'll admit. So I assume debian actually could have used the image too but decided not to.
The code change issue also comes up when security patches to no longer supported mozilla versions are back ported from current security patches to the older versions. Since the code doesn't come from mozilla, they consider it a change to the program, and then the restriction on using the name kicks in. This is really a nasty situation, and I actually never thought I'd see mozilla go this route, but I'm also not surprised to see it I'm sad to say.
Firefox doesn't want to monetize in the future, they have already monetized, and quite heavily, every time you use the google search box in your upper right corner mozilla makes a little bit of money from google. Opera made the same deal, by the way, which is why opera is now also ad free and free as in beer. It's a lot of money by the way. First year it was reported to be around 70 million US dollars, although I haven't seen that number confirmed for sure. But it was a lot, whatever the exact number is.
You can see this because when you run a search through that box it's flagged as coming from firefox in the search url, this is so google knows how much to pay mozilla. Same goes for Opera. One subtle benefit of this flagging, by the way, is that from what I can see, firefox users are given slightly more sophisticated responses to technically oriented queries by google.
stryder - 25.09.2006, 01:59 Uhr
Titel:
h2 hat folgendes geschrieben::
stryder, that's not actually what they are saying at all. What they are saying is that you cannot use the firefox name if you have changed the firefox code in anyway. That's the core of the problem, and that's the decision firefox/mozilla made, that they did not need to make. That's why I gave the linux trademark as an example of a better way to handle that issue. In other words, let the name flow freely so it can spread.
I have quoted sections of the discussion a few posts ago that quite clearly spell out the issue
Zitat:
I've confirmed that this isn't acceptable usage of the trademark. If you are going to use the Firefox name, you must also use the rest of the branding.
As I said, you could be right and there's more on the plate than is stated so far. However, it would seem illogical for corporate mozilla to want a debian fork since, I guess, they will not get search revenue from forked users.
h2 - 25.09.2006, 02:00 Uhr
Titel:
I'd have to reread it, you could be right, but I think the general idea is what I said, but this stuff is so annoying to follow that it's hard to actually pinpoint.
<added>
I reread some of it, now I see the source of the confusion, both things are being said from what I can gather.
Debian objects to the requirement that in order to use the branding, which they can't actually use because of the debian rules about not using trademarked images, they have to change slightly one component of firefox, and mozilla says it's fine to change the code, but only as long as you first submit it to mozilla, then wait for mozilla to approve it as a valid change, then debian can release its security updates for firefox. Which obviously will add a week or more to the security update process.
This situation should not exist at all, it's ridiculous.
stryder - 25.09.2006, 02:04 Uhr
Titel:
Yes, it's sad when greed starts to cloud the picture. I'm just hoping that this isn't the case yet and that the issues are resolvable. However I think in this case the problem is with the debian maintainer who wants to strip out copyrighted graphics.
h2 - 25.09.2006, 02:09 Uhr
Titel:
But in order to use those copyrighted graphics, which he has to strip out by the debian rules, he has to modify the code, and that's what the mozilla guy is harping on. This is a total technicality, and absolutely one hundred percent outside of the spirit of anything open source is about as far as I'm concerned, but it is sadly predictable.
The problem here is that while the mozilla guy has the rules and law on his side, he doesn't have what is right on his side, and that's the real issue. And the fact is, mozilla previously allowed this, and now suddenly won't allow it. And that's something that even the mozilla guy had to grudgingly admit was correct, before justifying and rationalizing that fact.
stryder - 25.09.2006, 02:23 Uhr
Titel:
No - well, at least from what I can understand, and I'm no programmer. Remember debian includes source code. You can build regular firefox. After all that's the code from mozilla. But the maintainer has included a switch which builds a "vanilla" firefox (less firefox graphics). Which is also OK by mozilla BUT vanilla firefox cannot be named firefox. Mozilla is saying, I don't see why you need for people to be able to build vanilla firefox, but it's your choice. Merely make sure that that end product is not called firefox or have the firefox name inside.
h2 - 25.09.2006, 02:26 Uhr
Titel:
I can't read any more of that stuff though, it's just too annoying, when I see someone talking like that mike connor guy is talking I get depressed, it's like listening to a machine, not a human being.... mozilla.com must maintain full control over its marks because they are very powerful and profitable... what a bunch of total crap.
Zitat:
Given your subsequent comments indicating that the Mozilla Foundation
reserves the right to revoke trademark grants for released versions of
Debian, I don't see that we have any choice but to discontinue our use of
the marks.
For my part I think your trademark handling is unprecedented in Free
Software and really rather unreasonable, and it's certainly far removed from
the understanding that we had with Gervase previously, but it's your
trademark to manage as you wish and Debian will certainly take appropriate
steps to ensure we aren't infringing it.
that's by steve langesek, and that about sums it up perfectly. Basically: yes, you can be and act like a corporate a@@hole, we can't stop you, but we most certainly do find it very sad, and fairly unprecedented.
stryder - 25.09.2006, 03:10 Uhr
Titel:
So there is a bigger agenda on the plate as you suspected. Which is why I say that debian should just fork firefox and be done with it. But you're right, it's sad when two groups committed to a similar cause cannot find ways to agree.
h2 - 25.09.2006, 03:17 Uhr
Titel:
Zitat:
t's sad when two groups committed to a similar cause cannot find ways to agree.
stryder: that's exactly what makes me sad about this. In fact, when mozilla was committed to this cause, this issue did not come up, but from reading that thread, it was made completely, explicitly clear, that only once mozilla became mozilla.inc did this issue come up.
And that's the real problem, it's not the technicalities being discussed, it's the fundamental attitude behind the decisions that are made, and why they are made. That's why no matter how many words mike types in that and any future exchanges, that core issue will remain as the real problem. And if there was a will to make the process easier, cleaner, less problematic for debian, the premier free software distro on the planet, mozilla could easily have found many ways to go that extra mile to make it work. And they did do this, until this guy took over. He even admits this explicitly, saying that this was not a real issue before mozilla became .com. So I assume that this guy, and his supervisors, are the actual real problem.
Debian can't fork firefox though, since that's a huge pile of code, too much, all they can do is package it and maintain that package. I really feel sorry for the debian firefox package maintainers though, this must really be annoying for them. When an organization that is making lots of money can't take some of that and use it to help the open source projects that are truly non commercial, that's a very sad comment on where they are.
But I am glad you clarified and corrected what I said since it wasn't right.
slam - 25.09.2006, 08:10 Uhr
Titel:
Welcome to the world of shareholder value!
That's how it works:
1) Build the name of a non existing animal by combining 2 common words;
2) Add a mediocre drawing showing the animal surrounding a globe;
3) Take a bunch of old crap abandon-ware code;
4) Motivate talented people around the world to contribute to a free and open project;
5) Base your marketing on the David vs. Goliath myth and make the animal famous;
6) Found a corporate entity and let it own "just the trademarks and copyrights";
7) Start talking about "intellectual property", "intangible goods" and other interesting stuff;
8-10) "Protect" your corporate values by bothering everybody who adapts your product to his needs (yes, you have promised this right to everybody in the beginning, but who cares - people forget fast).
Congrats - after reaching 20% market share you have built a multi-billion $ business on the shoulders of talented and - mostly - unpaid people, and on the shoulders of all those lemmings around the world who could not resist your "little foxy". Now start charging for "support", "corporate branded versions", "special extensions" and "artistic themes". If you feel the moment is right, go and have dinner with Bill Gates and ask him for his famous "offer you could not deny".
Greetings,
Chris
tinker - 25.09.2006, 16:06 Uhr
Titel:
slam,
This is a really minor point and does not in any way detract from the rest of what you stated (nor do I want to) but there is an animal called firefox. It's a little red panda and looks a lot like the raccoons that eat the apples out of my apple trees.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Panda
drb - 25.09.2006, 17:42 Uhr
Titel:
The answer - rename "firefox" "redpanda" or "bearcat" or "wah"?
DeepDayze - 25.09.2006, 18:45 Uhr
Titel:
LOL@those names...ought to be some sort of vote for a new name for the FF browser in debian.
DeepDayze - 25.09.2006, 18:47 Uhr
Titel:
Besides the fox in the FF logo resembles a red panda
slam - 25.09.2006, 18:56 Uhr
Titel:
tinker hat folgendes geschrieben::
slam,
This is a really minor point and does not in any way detract from the rest of what you stated (nor do I want to) but there is an animal called firefox. It's a little red panda and looks a lot like the raccoons that eat the apples out of my apple trees.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Panda
Thanks for the info - I love to learn something new.
Actually RedPanda would make a great corporate brand name again ....
Greetings,
Chris
titan - 25.09.2006, 20:53 Uhr
Titel:
h2 hat folgendes geschrieben::
I'm seeing the same thing by the way happen on the linux kernel with Thorvald's position against the FSF and the GPL 3, same exact logic, same arguments, and the same cause.
Not too sure what you mean here h2, when Linus and 11 other kernel developers voice opinions against GPL3 then I think there must be some reason. I understand ( I think) what the GPLv3 is trying to do but why the resistance from the key people developing the core element of all versions of Linux
h2 - 25.09.2006, 21:27 Uhr
Titel:
If you read especially linuses comments in groklaw on this topic you'll find that their position is not nearly as rational and reasonable as mundo makes it sound in the current lwn.net thread.
You're absolutely right there's a reason, but I don't think that the kernel developer's themselves actually understand what that reason is. Self understanding is not a quality I expect to see in very high level engineers, to put it mildly, they are immersed in engineering problems all day and begin to lose perspective, this is a danger of doing that kind of work. And if this is suggested they get very defensive without actually even reflecting on the reality of their positions in terms of their daily work and existence.
The core of their arguments is that it will scare away their corporate patrons, which to me simply reveals the presence of the very same slippery slope. Not to mention how shrill and hysterical linus sounds when he discusses this. When you compare the level of coherence and rationality between Stallman/Moglen and linus it's not a flattering picture in my opinion, and I've found that the anti gpl 3 arguments almost all seem to disintigrate upon closer examination. Linus in fact became so hysterical and abusive in the groklaw thread that the moderator had to edit his comments. If he was trying to impress anyone with his cool reasoning skills he failed, to put it mildly. Bottom line is that the core kernel developers are currently far too close to major corporations, and have formed what is essentially an circle made up of only high level engineers, not a group well known for its visionary abilities.
Again, reading stallman/moglen vs the core kernel developers is like night and day, and not in the kernel developers favor. It's the same situation as firefox from what I can see, and will probably have to be dealt with in some major way in the future.
What is interesting is how mundo takes the apparently calm, rational approach here:
http://lwn.net/Articles/200422/
but when you compare that to the leader of the project here:
http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode ... 04#c466084
It's hard to link to the actual page, but if you expand that one using the 'nested' option you can read the whole nasty exchange, and believe me, the public tone linus and the kernel guys are now deciding to take has nothing to do with the tone linus really has, and it's not a pleasant thing to see. I've read and heard tons of interviews with moglen and stallman, and as far as I'm concerned, they are showing just who it was who had the vision to create the gpl, and why it was that linus grabbed onto the vision created by them. Linus does not appear to have the ability to generate any particularly adult vision of his own from what I can tell.
You can see the radical difference. Linus basically hates the whole idea behind free software, thinks that the only opinions that matter are those of the core 11 kernel developers, most of who are I assume employed by some corporation, and none of who seem able to grasp the simple concept that you tend to absorb the values of the people around you, and when those people are corporate types, and that's who pays your bills year in and year out, that's the values you will start having. You can pretend to yourself that this won't happen, but that's fairly naive, that suggests that one can float unaffected above your daily work without being influenced at all by it, sort of like a buddha or something.
This concept appears to be incomprehensible to any of the core kernel developers, especially Linus himself, who from what I read appears to be starting to have some very significant ego problems, and a disconnect from the reality of the growing world of free software. Despite the fact that an entire spanish state, for example, just decided to move to Free as in Freedom software, Linus appears to think and believe that only the corporate takeup of linux matters and is real. Very narrow view, almost blind, which is what I expect from him now.
It's an interesting situation, all I can say is I have now lost a tremendous amount of respect for Linus, but he really is just showing that he just an engineer, a good one, with no vision at all. The core mistake he's making however is not realizing that he got where he is by using Stallman's vision. But now he wants to not do that, but his only vision, in his own words, is 'to have fun', to deal with a tiny group of 11 guys daily, and nothing outside of that.
I had a friend who is a very high level microsoft engineer, and I've seen this process before, I can basically plugin the basic attitude behind Linuses current words, and just by replacing the freesoftware/gpl 3 attacks with unix/linux, I can recall almost identically narrow conversations with my microsoft engineer friend. Literally, almost the same exact mental process. And that's how it happens, year in and year out, you're around a certain type of person, a certain group, a certain value system, so of course it seeps into you more and more, especially as you get into your 30's and your ability and energy to resist it decreases [a sad fact of life...]. This is why I freelance, I've seen the process too often to pretend to myself I can resist it.
I even recognized the increasing shrillness and near hysterical quality of the tone of voice linus is taking, same exact thing I saw with my now ex friend. And the fundamental circling of wagons, and the assuming that only the core group of engineer developers could possibly grasp the larger picture, item for item, it's the same process.
Not to mention how absurdly naive Linus is to think that the core group of developers, the ones he's essentially allowed in over the years, would have anything but the same worldview that he himself has, dugh... obviously, the leader of the project sets the overall tone, and attracts people he can relate to. But this simple principle too is apparently incomprensible to these guys, who actually think doing a poll of a group of people who by definition already more or less agree with you has any meaning at all.
both of those threads are very long, far too long, and the arguments against the position the kernel guys are taking, which in my opinion tend to get buried because they rely on basic common sense and some understanding of human psychology, which are most telling and most revealing tend to get ignored or scornfully rejected, without of course any real discussion of those points. Which to me shows even more clearly that the kernel guys are just engineers, with the limits engineers have. Sad but I think more and more obviously true.
We'll see how it turns out, to me as long as the kernel guys stick to engineering we'll be fine, but when they start trying to create any vision, watch out, linus makes his vision, or total lack thereof, painfully and explicitly clear in the groklaw thread.
And I strongly suspect that the entire DRM thing, which if you read the lwn.net thread you should gain a very clear understanding of, is in fact just what Stallman/Moglen are saying: it has to be stopped now in order to keep software open and free. Imagine a motherboard that will only run signed version of windows for example.
Linus, because of his fundamentally irrational position I'm fairly convinced, even starts saying patently absurd things in defense of himself, like: you can make your own hardware. That's the stupidest response I've yet seen, but it's what he came to to try to defend his position. I don't know about you, but I can't make my own hardware, I don't have a chip fab plant and a team of design engineers at my disposal. Maybe Linus does, I don't know. But you'll see this type of mental slip up over and over if you read their positions carefully, and it's my opinion that these errors reveal that fundamental emptiness of the kernel developer's position, as well as the irrationality of Linuses heated opposition to the gpl 3 and its process.
I think stallman was right when he created the gpl 2, and I think when the gpl 3 is finalized, that will also be fairly close to right, if by right you mean defending the rights of the users long term by envisioning the events that would remove them, then placing barriers against those events. It's my opinion that Linus has now clearly shown that he is completely incapable of envisioning anything at all in this sense, so to listen to him attack Stallman and freesoftware as if he were is getting sort of sad.
Stallman may be a nut case, but I think he's a nutcase in the sense that most visionary geniuses are nut cases. You don't have to be friends with them, but you can appreciate the results of their foresight and genius. Linus clearly does not have this genius from what I can see. Which was fine when he didn't pretend he did, but now it may not be so fine any more. We'll see.
Another huge, but predictable, mental error the kernel guys are making is in believing that taking a 'pragmatic' approach, in other words, an approach that does not scare off major corporate linux kernel supporters, is somehow value neutral. As if corporations are apolitical. This is phenomenally naive, but it's exactly what the kernel guys claim. They think that what they consider normal, pragmatic is completely apolitical, which is ridiculous, but that's what they are trying to convince themselves of. This fact is also pointed out quite clearly by some posters in the lwn.net thread, but the point simply floats over mundoes head, like most of the other key points do.
Keep in mind here though that drm in this context is not about media protection, it's about locking down hardware so only your code can run on it.
Swynndla - 25.09.2006, 22:45 Uhr
Titel:
h2, thanks for the insightful post!
I heard that some of the linux kernel developers were on the payroll of large corporates, and sure enough:
http://www.linuxtoday.com/developer/2006080303126NWCYKN
What will the big corporates gain from this? It surely isn't charity, but an investment for the future of the firm? Google will be trying to influence the kernel developers towards business goals, right?
h2 - 25.09.2006, 23:07 Uhr
Titel:
In my opinion the process is far far more subtle than that.
Google is a corporation. By law it must make money for its shareholders. That's not optional. So it will always be pressed to make decisions that will result in some kind of expansion and growth. Those decisions may or may not be in accord with the spirit of open source and free software.
Google itself is a very insular place, very much like microsoft used to by back in the day. I just read a book on them, and they will suffer the same problems other enclosed environments face, corporate culture begins to blind people in the company to outside realities when day to day all you see is the culture you work in.
And of course, with high level computer programming, this is even more extreme a case, since you tend to do it 12 hours a day, and to think about it the rest of the time, and to dream about it when you sleep. As most any programmer can tell you. So you lose even more of your ability to step outside your narrow world and try to see any larger picture in even a remotely objective sense.
This is why I never listen to the political, social, economic etc opinions of most corporate types, by the way, I don't care how they justify the end result of the process, as long as they remain blind to the facts of the process there's not much for them to really say to an outsider. With the exception of other corporate types, who generally will understand them fine, since they share the same core values.
While the OSDL is one step removed, it's directly funded by the major IT companies, so the values are simply filtered and made more generic, not company specific.
This results in one's worldview slowly but surely being distorted away from larger realities and towards the narrower reality of the place you spend most of your waking hours, surrounded by other people who spend their time in the same exact way.
it's almost impossible to avoid this trap from what I've seen. So no explicit intention or scheme or plan is required, it just sort of happens.
this is why it's so dangerous to allow only those types of voices to set policies that affect people outside of that environment. And the problem is, this process is so subtle, and creeps up on you piece by piece, so you don't even know it's happened to you. And then you get outraged when someone suggests that you may no longer be as objective and clear sighted as we'd all like to believe we are....
Re the direct cause of Google hiring this guy, it's partly status, partly because as he says, google does heavy work on its own version of the kernel, so having a top kernel guy is clearly a wise move in terms of locking down a valuable resource, partly them recognizing that they owe open source a massive debt which can essentially never be adequately be repaid, since google generated basically all their billions using linux and other open source products like python. Even the first google logos were made on the gimp, way back in the day. So they do have a sense of this obligation, but as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and I have absolutely no doubt that google, like most other big IT companies, will prove the truth of that saying to everyone's complete satisfaction.
h2 - 25.09.2006, 23:45 Uhr
Titel:
By the way, don't get me wrong, I don't think that the main kernel guys are bad engineers, I assume that they are excellent kernel engineers. I just don't see much sign of any other areas where that excellence shows itself, especially not in Linus nowadays. He just strikes me as a kid throwing a tantrum when someone threatens to mess with his toys. NO NO, I won't do it I won't do it and you can't make me so there. That's really the depth of his argument from what I've read.
Meanwhile Stallman and Moglen strike me as very mature, very well considered, with constantly expanding horizons, due to travelling around the globe constantly talking up free software, meeting with diverse groups of freesoftware advocates, in different countries, cultures, etc. I'm especially consistently impressed with just how reasonable they try to be, as well as how fundamentally rational and consistent their positions strive to be. Of course, that's the whole point behind the free in free software, it's not a compromise, it's not a sellout. So when you try to push compromise solutions they just won't be as rational or as consistent, and will almost by definition create underlying problems and inconstencies in positions, since the positions aren't actually coherent, at least not from what I can gather.
Linus, for example, accuses them of being closed in terms of the gpl 3, which is ridiculous when you consider that linus and his core developers also have absolute veto power over the kernel code itself. What Linus really means is that they didn't do exactly what he wanted when he demanded that some parts be removed. That makes the process 'closed'. Another very childish action by Linus, who seems dead set on making himself as unlikeable as humanly possible in as short a time as possible.
But that's simply another example of just how blind Linus and those guys really are becoming. One poster in the lwn.net threads, for example, points to the constant revision process for the gpl 3 as evidence that it is flawed. As if reacting to public input and changing the document to better deal with the objections shows anything but an open process. But that's the degrees that the people opposed to this have to go intellectually, and it shows the relative emptiness of their core beliefs in my opinion.
decent opinion piece here today:
http://www.libervis.com/gplv3_is_to_pre ... ot_kill_it
plus of course read up on what stallman and moglen actually are saying, many good interviews/transcripts out there
list of recent transcripts on gpl 3 here:
http://fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/#transcripts
If you read this stuff anything like I do, you'll start noticing how level, balanced, clear, coherent, etc, these arguments are. And how hard they are working to make the process open, and as responsive to the needs of the actual free software users around the world. Obviously they can't bend as far as the kernel guys want, since that's bending too far from the principles of free software, which is something that Linus and company really should understand better than they appear to.
I would say that if corporations find the gpl 3 this disturbing, then it is very likely that the FSF is on exactly the right track. If you recall, the GPL 2 was called a cancer, communistic, and various other labels, until the corporate world started to see the benefits of not having to create their own operating systems and applications from scratch.
Not to mention that the anti gpl 3 stuff sounds exactly the same as the anti gpl 2 stuff I used to read, not wanting to change, fear, uncertainty, etc. When it's really not that radical at all, it just tightens loopholes.
<sorry, this drifted too far off topic, though it is related to the firefox issue in my opinion in terms of root causes, but now I'll shut up>
stryder - 26.09.2006, 02:07 Uhr
Titel:
h2, thanks for the insights and the links. Will take some time to read through though.
wegface - 26.09.2006, 08:35 Uhr
Titel:
hmm well ive read enough of all that.......... conclusions? maybe we will all be on kanotix bsd in a few years haha
titan - 26.09.2006, 09:25 Uhr
Titel:
h2 I had already read most of the links you posted but don't draw the same conclusions. Linus may well be showing himself in a bad light but being a great developer does not mean he is also naturally eloquent in expressing his views, hence the frustration showing. Stallman et al are fighting on political grounds, Linus purely technical. I am as cynical as most but just to say all the kernel developers are in the pocket of corporations is really far too simplistic, they need paying to live or maybe you think they should fund kernel development from their own pocket.
There are major practical issues changing the kernel to gplv3. It would appear to me that the contentious issues around DRM are more political than technical. It would also seem more than 11 kernel developers are against gplv3 www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/78631
eco2geek - 26.09.2006, 09:49 Uhr
Titel:
Fascinating topic. At least it answered the question of why Debian uses a blue globe instead of the Firefox logo. (Which is not a bad thing, since I've never seen an icon of the Firefox logo that didn't look ragged.)
This situation is sort of similar to the distributors of Red Hat derivatives, who are free to use the official source rpms to create their own distros, but have to strip out all Red Hat branding.
But we're not talking about an entire distro here, just a web browser -- even if it's "the" web browser on Linux. It is odd to hear someone like Mr. Connor be so hard-assed as to demand that Debian, one of the major Linux distros, comply with its terms, or 1) make a version completely devoid of its trademarks (including changing its name); or 2) banishing it to non-free (meaning it won't be in the base distro), instead of coming up with some amicable solution. His company's demands are 1) Debian must use the real Firefox logo (which conflicts with the DFSG); and 2) Debian must submit all modifications made to Firefox to Mozilla Corp. for approval before inclusion in Debian.
You'd think Mozilla Corp. would be more interested in having its software included in a major Linux distro than in being "right."
Here's what they say in their trademark policy:
"Those taking full advantage of the open-source nature of Mozilla's products and making significant functional changes may not redistribute the fruits of their labor under any Mozilla trademark. For example, it would be inappropriate for them to say "based on Mozilla Firefox". Instead, in the interest of complete accuracy, they should describe their executables as "based on Mozilla technology", or "incorporating Mozilla source code." They should also change the name of the executable so as to reduce the chance that a user of the modified software will be misled into believing it to be a native Mozilla product."
It would seem that the "significant functional changes" part is what's enabling our friend, Mr. Connor, to demand that the Debian maintainers run their patches by his company in exchange for the use of the Firefox name (and logo! Don't forget to include the logo!).
Their trademark policy also states, "By non-disparaging, we mean that, outside the bounds of fair use, you can't use our trademarks as vehicles for defaming us or sullying our reputation." So please, be careful when you say, "MozillaSux ®".
titan - 26.09.2006, 12:19 Uhr
Titel:
Another posting today which I think clearly states Linus reasoning and objections, seems reasonable enough to me.
www.linux.com/article.pl?sid=06/09/25/2311215
Swynndla - 26.09.2006, 13:14 Uhr
Titel:
So what do people think debian will end up doing? ...
1) reject mozilla's demands and ship debian without firefox
2) reject mozilla's demands and ship debian with firefox but call it a different name, or
3) accept mozilla's debmands, and break their philosophy
I hope it's not number 3, as I like debian because it's fiercely non-corporate.
But if it's number 1 or 2, then will that mean debian will alienate itself from the other linux distro's? ... I'm assuming here that Red Hat and Suse would still ship with firefox. Although I'm guessing that the likes of Ubuntu etc would still ship their releases with firefox? And what of Kanotix?
DeepDayze - 26.09.2006, 13:17 Uhr
Titel:
i think Fedora does the same sort of thing with FF...they turned off the update function in same fashion as Debian. Not sure if Fedora/Redhat will get same treatment from Mozilla Inc. as Debian is getting
titan - 26.09.2006, 15:40 Uhr
Titel:
DeepDayze hat folgendes geschrieben::
i think Fedora does the same sort of thing with FF...they turned off the update function in same fashion as Debian. Not sure if Fedora/Redhat will get same treatment from Mozilla Inc. as Debian is getting
It states in the linked corespondence that red hat and Novell already comply with Mozilla's policies ie submit any changes through Mozilla.
Debian cannot ship Firefox as it is as it does not comply with DFSG they have said they will comply with Mozilla's guidelines which can mean only one thing if they want to continue shipping Firefox and that is rename it. This will impact on Debian derivitives, maybe Ubuntu will do something different which will also then affect Meppis. It seems a poor business decision by Mozilla as I am sure the Google search bar will be removed which is a source of income via click thoughs not to mention the bad will it will cause.
wegface - 26.09.2006, 16:18 Uhr
Titel:
Surely the google search bar would remain- as it is a useful feature- but the data it adds to the search quiery could easily be removed- then no more money for mozilla....
h2 - 26.09.2006, 21:46 Uhr
Titel:
Zitat:
I am as cynical as most but just to say all the kernel developers are in the pocket of corporations is really far too simplistic, they need paying to live or maybe you think they should fund kernel development from their own pocket.
titan, nowhere did I say that the kernel developers 'were in the pockets of corporations'. In fact, I went very far to make explicitly clear that the process of internalizing values is much more subtle than that. It's you in this case that is trying to simplify a complex and subtle process, and to put words into my mouth. I tried, but I guess failed in your case, to make explicitly clear how that process works.
And I didn't say that they should fund this out of their own pocket. Why people insist on trying to simplify points and reduce them to black and white opposites is absolutely beyond me. I don't say this to be rude, but you really are seriously mistating what I said, and not in a subtle way. I suggest you reread much more carefully what Linus said in the Groklaw threads, and notice how at every step he gets a bit more hysterical, until he finally begins to reveal what he really thinks. Which is useful for anyone paying attention, that's an old method, get the person you want to learn something from either drunk or mad and they'll soon show their true colors. This formula has been known for thousands of years, and it's actually kind of sad to see that Linus was naive enough to fall into that trap, but he was. But I'm not saying anyone laid a trap out for him, just that he fell into a trap he created himself. If you're misreading me this badly, are you absolutely certain that you are also not misreading the other materials you have read?
To make it explicitly clear: the danger in working with and around people who all share essentially the same values is that you will begin to get absorbed into those values, and to lose your ability to resist the values you did not start out having, but which the organization around you does have. This is virtually impossible to avoid. There is no conspiracy in this process, it's just normal human behavior, and always has been. The more intense the work you do, day in and day out, the less likely that you will be able to resist this process. And few things are more intense than kernel development.
One thing I've found over and over again is that once this happens, the people who have fallen into this trap will refuse to see that it's happened, will deny that it's happened, and will get increasingly upset when it's pointed out to them that it probably has happened.
By doing this they are essentially saying that they are cabable of rising above their daily lives and activities, like gods or saints, and to not be influenced by them at all. That's a totally ridiculous thing to believe or expect anyone to do, but that's essentially what they are pretending they can do in this case. This is beyond naive, but it's also par for the course among types like this, as I noted, I've seen this process first hand, it wasn't pleasant then, and it's not pleasant now.
The fact that the kernel developers are unable to recognize this process is the real problem, as I said above. To translate this into the simplest terms: they cannot be as objective as they would like to think that they are, and the arguments they are putting forward just happen to coincide with the essential positions of the corporations with whom they work and that pays most of their salaries. This is not an accident. But it's also not any type of conspiracy, it's no different than people on a sports team evolving a team mentality the longer they play together. You internalize things, you avoid issues that will raise fundamental disagreements in order to get your daiily work done as smoothly as possible. So if HP for example feels strongly that patent protection is not something they are comfortable with, voila, the kernel developers also feel that patent protection is not something they are comfortable with.
They need people like Stallman as much as Stallman needs them, they form a perfect team: linus, cox, morton etc are great kernel hackers, but to be great at one thing you almost always have to sacrifice something else. There are very few universal geniuses around, and Linus is most definitely not one of them. A fact, by the way, he used to, until very recently, have no problems admitting.
Where Linus has focused on the kernel, Stallman has focused on larger issues, and longer range visions. To me, Linus is just a guy who hacks well, and attracts other good hackers. That's a good thing to have, but it's nothing more than that. So when I want long range grasps of potential issues, I'm not looking for solutions from Linus, and he clearly isn't either.
However, I believe, the more on this I read, that this issue is not nearly as significant as Linus and his supporters are trying to paint it. The gpl 3 might negatively affect a few corporations who are trying to take as much advantage of the gpl 2 as possible, but who could give a sh#t about any long range principles, but why should anyone care about them? The kernel would do fine without them, and they would soon find that their opposition was as silly as it was against the gpl 2, before they saw the light.
They just want to minimize risk and maximize profit, and oddly enough, that's the entire point Linus and the kernel guys also are making. Although in the kernel guy's case, risk equals risking losing corporation x or y as a code contributor, and profit equals getting more code. Like I said, it's not surprising when you absorb the values and concerns of the people you work with and around day in and day, believing that you can avoid this is just plain naive. But there is a way out, and it's to recognize this limit, and to accept it, while still hacking away to your heart's content. But that means putting your ego in check, and I think that's the true, core problem that Linus is having today.
You will never find the core of Linuses objections in anything he says, in my opinion, he simply does not have the ability to see that core any longer, that's what it looks like to me anyway. His comments demonstrated that very clearly to me, and mundoes only served to demonstrate that point in a slightly more subtle and less inflamitory way.
The political stuff I referred to also didn't seem to register I'm sad to say, so I'll say it again: supporting the status quo of current corporate values is an inherently political act. Corporations are part of the political system, they influence it, they set policy when they can, which is pretty often. Pretending this doesn't happen is incredibly naive, but that's again what the kernel guys are claiming. This is what happens when you lose the ability to have an overview of yourself and your environment, and it's happened here.
The reason kanotix for example cannot discuss certain topics here is direct result of this corporate political activity. Not understanding this is a big problem, but it does require some insight into how modern politics actually work. So the 'pragmatic' decisions made are in cases like this directly political.
Anyway, it's pointless repeating this stuff, it's obvious, it's easy to learn and understand, so if someone hasn't yet realized that corporations are directly linked into modern political life there is probably very little chance they will understand that just because I type a few words.
Anyway titan, I don't really want to argue points I'm not even making, that's not a very good way to spend time, so at least give a try to arguing the points I am actually making, then maybe we can have a meaningful discussion.
Re Stallman: the definition of a genius is essentially someone who can see more, and earlier, than others who had access to the same information. Geniuses tend to annoy really smart people, who aren't actually at that level, and of course, they also tend to just be plain annoying in and of themselves, and Stallman I'm sure is no exception to this rule. Plus it's just hard on the smart person's ego to have to admit someone else is way smarter than they are. And stallman is in my opinion way smarter than Linus. He sees further, his visions come to life. He even gets people to do the hardest parts of his job for him without having to lift a finger, such as the linux kernel.
From everything I've read of Stallman, including his bio, upbringing, etc, he very clearly is an absolute genius, although of course with few social graces. Linus isn't. He's just a very focused, very bright, engineer.
I respect visionaries far more than highly skilled engineers, I'm sorry to say, especially ones whose visions have turned out to not only be workable, but have resulted in changing the world. I also respect artists more than engineers, for the same reason.
h2 - 26.09.2006, 22:17 Uhr
Titel:
By the way, I really want to emphasize again, I think the kernel hackers are doing great work, watching it progess is really a cool thing, I just also think that they are beginning to talk about things that they seem increasingly unable to discuss objectively, or to even understand.
The simple solution would be for them to let go of their egos and say: we don't care about visions, we'll let stallman handle that, it's worked great and taken us this far, so why should we change that relationship?
I don't mean not change the gpl, I mean not change trusting in the essential vision stallman and moglen created with the gpl 2. Obviously, history proved Stallman's ability to see ahead very well, so I'd personally just keep trusting it. But I do now see why Stallman has so little trust and liking for Open Source versus Free Software, he can see how little attachment they have to the actual core values, and how happily they'll compromise just so they themselves can 'keep having fun'. Not to say you shouldn't have fun, but it's not a sin to both have fun and have fundamental core values and beliefs, both at the same time.
eco2geek - 26.09.2006, 22:24 Uhr
Titel:
Swynndla hat folgendes geschrieben::
So what do people think debian will end up doing? ...
If this dispute isn't settled amicably, my hope is that the Debian team will strip out all references to "Firefox," come up with a new name, and continue on as before. In other words, have a default browser that is all Firefox except in name.
One of the things that's so interesting about this dispute is that it hasn't come up before. What if the authors of other popular open-source software made the same demands?
"Attention: You can only call it The GIMP if you submit all your distro-related modifications to the GIMP sources to us for prior review; and note that our GIMP logo is protected by copyright and trademark laws and cannot be used or modified under any circumstances by anyone without our permission. If you wish to include The GIMP in your distro, you must not only call it The GIMP, you must also use our proprietary logos."
What a mess that would create. This is a bad precedent.
h2 - 26.09.2006, 22:36 Uhr
Titel:
eco2geek, thanks for bringing this back ontopic, lol... that's exactly what the debian guy I quoted said too: why now? this is unprecedented. What gives?
This is really a very simple issue, as you noted, the gimp, apache, the linux kernel, these are all names that are known and trusted, and for some reason each is able to allow what mozilla will not allow. What that mike guy does is try to hide behind technicalities and BS to avoid this core question. And of course, the core question is really the actual issue, not some legal crap that shouldn't even have entered into the discussion in the first place if this was an interaction between adult human beings, which it apparently was before the mozilla corporation and their mike droid decided that it was time to clamp down to minimize threat to a potential profit center, which is what this really appears to be all about.
slam - 26.09.2006, 22:54 Uhr
Titel:
Zitat:
And of course, the core question is really the actual issue, not some legal crap that shouldn't even have entered into the discussion in the first place if this was an interaction between adult human beings, which it apparently it was before the mozilla corporation and their mike droid decided that it was time to clamp down to minimize threat to a potential profit center, which is what this is all about.
Hehe, in my humble and rude way I have already simplified all that to the same point 2 pages earlier. However, please don't stop - I really love to listen to intelligent discussions - since I was a little boy, actually. 
Greetings,
Chris
h2 - 26.09.2006, 22:56 Uhr
Titel:
Just my way of saying I agree with you 100%, heh heh, and always appreciate it when you come in and post your views, since they seem to cut right to the heart of matters without the extra words I seem to require.
eco2geek - 26.09.2006, 23:53 Uhr
Titel:
Sorry, Chris, I was too distracted by your current avatar to read your comment.
Here's my DFSG-compliant suggestion for Debian:
stryder - 27.09.2006, 01:48 Uhr
Titel:
Ever since Chris got into the discussion I can't get the name "Debbie does Firefox" out of my head. I'd like to propose a logo but it might go the way of some infamous multimedia player. Heck, you can even have the tagline "Some problems just need to be fscked".
titan - 27.09.2006, 10:52 Uhr
Titel:
h2 hat folgendes geschrieben::
The political stuff I referred to also didn't seem to register I'm sad to say, so I'll say it again: supporting the status quo of current corporate values is an inherently political act. Corporations are part of the political system, they influence it, they set policy when they can, which is pretty often. Pretending this doesn't happen is incredibly naive,
Anyway titan, I don't really want to argue points I'm not even making, that's not a very good way to spend time, so at least give a try to arguing the points I am actually making, then maybe we can have a meaningful discussion.
h2, I understand the arguments but try to keep my posts concise and to the point which unfortunately may make my views look polorised.
Your posts do imply that the developers views on the GPL3 are influenced by their work environments ie the corporations that employ/sponsor them this may well be true but the fact is that now 29 developers do not want the DRM changes of the GPL3 included. So are they all unable to make a rational judgement because of their work environment, I dont think so. Your point is valid but just your supposition. From what Linus has said he will not be changing the licence from GPL2 anyway so the whole argument is a bit academic. You think Stallman is wonderful but I doubt very much you would want to use Linux as he proscribes it. Everything in life is a compromise. As unpleasant as the current arguments about GPL and Firefox are they are all part of the development of free software.
Incidently I don,t know whether it is intentional but I find your posts getting quite condescending, my posts may be short and to the point or even just plain wrong but never rude or personal.
titan - 28.09.2006, 10:55 Uhr
Titel:
It looks like a rename within a week
www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3634591
ockham23 - 28.09.2006, 11:06 Uhr
Titel:
My suggestion: DebFox
titan - 28.09.2006, 11:32 Uhr
Titel:
ockham23 hat folgendes geschrieben::
My suggestion: DebFox
Interesting to see what they come up with, I think they have concerns about being too close to Firefox.
Dweb Debrowser Webian Debnet don't quite have that Firefox ring to them
piper - 28.09.2006, 19:53 Uhr
Titel:
Debex, Debox, Dx
nish - 05.10.2006, 19:23 Uhr
Titel: Gnuzilla & Iceweasel it is, apparently
http://www.gnu.org/software/gnuzilla/
I was surprised that the moz suite is going to continue... I just recently and very reluctantly gave up my moz suite for Firefox & Thunderbird as I heard the suite was never going to be updated. I miss having everything together under one roof, so to speak.
DeepDayze - 05.10.2006, 20:36 Uhr
Titel: RE: Gnuzilla & Iceweasel it is, apparently
Seamonkey is the replacement for the Moz Suite
nish - 05.10.2006, 22:12 Uhr
Titel:
well gnu.org is saying that Gnuzilla is the moz suite, so I am assuming that would be seamonkey, then? Must look around a bit more there regarding it. Would be nice to have it all together again.
jackiebrown - 06.10.2006, 05:21 Uhr
Titel:
I just wish it would happen. I have lost my respect for mozilla.
eco2geek - 07.10.2006, 09:11 Uhr
Titel: IceWeasel Is Not Firefox
IceWeasel may, or may not, replace Firefox in Debian. We don't know yet. But it's there.
(No, I didn't make that one up!)
titan - 07.10.2006, 09:30 Uhr
Titel: RE: IceWeasel Is Not Firefox
Eric Dorland, the Debian Firefox maintainer's blog about the re-naming
http://ze-dinosaur.livejournal.com/12083.html
2radical - 14.10.2006, 18:47 Uhr
Titel: RE: IceWeasel Is Not Firefox
http://gnuzilla.gnu.org/download
h2 - 14.10.2006, 19:17 Uhr
Titel: RE: IceWeasel Is Not Firefox
how could they have come up with such a stupid name? that's really a very very bad decision, and I hope they reconsider.
iceweasel is a stupid name. It's just a resentment fueled naming of firefox, it's not a real name. It's almost childish in its badness.
There were some pretty good suggestions, freefox was one of the better ones, it actually suggested something, rolled off the tongue, would not confuse users, and also points to the core problem, firefox as currently packaged is not in fact fully free due to the stupid image/name trademark issues.
Swynndla - 14.10.2006, 21:09 Uhr
Titel: RE: IceWeasel Is Not Firefox
The read where one of the debian guys said that if they had a name that was too close to the name "firefox" then they could still be taken to court. So just in case, they wanted a name that didn't have the name "fire" nor "fox" in it.
I agree that users will be confused, but it's hard to come up with a non-confusing replacement name without the words fire and fox ... and so the user will not know that it's really firefox.
I'm not so worried here, as new users will learn (as they learn linux) what app are used for what purpose. App's A and B is used for this, and App's X, Y and Z are used for that. Konqueror and Iceweasel are used for the internet. The new users wouldn't think that the name Iceweasel is any more strange then the name Konqueror or any of the other strange app names. A lot of the linux app names aren't related to the purpose they are designed for (Firefox for example), and some of them are named with tongue in cheek (the Python programming language was named by people who really liked Monty Python). The people who named sux "sux" would have had a smile on there face I sure.
eco2geek - 14.10.2006, 22:33 Uhr
Titel: Re: RE: IceWeasel Is Not Firefox
h2 hat folgendes geschrieben::
how could they have come up with such a stupid name? that's really a very very bad decision, and I hope they reconsider.
iceweasel is a stupid name. It's just a resentment fueled naming of firefox, it's not a real name. It's almost childish in its badness.
My thought exactly. "Iceweasel" is just dumb. They could do something with "ice" -- maybe look through the dictionary for words starting with it -- but "weasel"? Time to email the maintainer.
Looks like Linspire/Freespire's already been down this path, since their web browser is Firefox except in name.
Incidentally, I've been playing with GNU Iceweasel, and was surprised to find that it uses my existing ~/.firefox directory by default (settings, plugins, bookmarks, etc.). They'll probably have to change that, too.
2radical - 15.10.2006, 01:05 Uhr
Titel:
Oh come on you guys, what's in a name anyway? Iceweasel is such a bad name it's cool 
So when is the sh** supposed to hit the fan, anyway? What's Debian going to do, & how are us Kanotix users supposed to feel ethically about the Firefox we now have installed? I'm using 1.5.0.7 with 2006-01. What's going to happen in the future?
The_Seeker - 15.10.2006, 02:35 Uhr
Titel:
Just received a surprise in my recent d-u, Thunderbird is now Icedove.
jackiebrown - 15.10.2006, 03:10 Uhr
Titel:
Only the locales language packs are available for amd64 side
craigevil - 15.10.2006, 03:10 Uhr
Titel:
Yep Thunderbird is now IceDove and hopefully IceWeasel makes in the repos soon. Weird thing about that is I could never get Thunderbird to send email using Gmail IceDove did it with no problem. Very strange, one of those things that make you go MMMMMMMMMM.
Using the verison from gnu.org all it didn't use the firefox profile I had to copy my extensions and settings into the /.gnuzilla/iceweasel folder.
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.7) Gecko/20060926 Iceweasel/1.5.0.7-g1
Who cares what the names is? It works and thats all that matters to most people.
2radical - 15.10.2006, 05:15 Uhr
Titel:
ICEDOVE? Now THAT'S a dumb name. It doesn't conjure up much except a dead bird frozen in ice. Fitting, perhaps...
wegface - 15.10.2006, 10:26 Uhr
Titel:
Any name is dumb when changed because of idiot corperations and there idiot lawyers. Stupid names for the mozilla software seems very fitting to me. F*** them and there crap. All free IceWeasel here i come!
(edit) strange they used a picture of a Yak or similiar cow type creature for the logo on the "about screen" eco2geek posted...... IcyYakWeaselCow browser.
kelmo - 15.10.2006, 10:29 Uhr
Titel:
C'mon. A name is a name is a name. Get over it . . .
stryder - 15.10.2006, 11:24 Uhr
Titel:
True, Kelmo, but in English weasel has poor connotations.
weasel: a cunning, sneaky person; Slang. an informer or stool pigeon; to evade an obligation or duty; to use weasel words is to be ambiguous or mislead.
Obviously they were going the other direction in their naming:
ice<->fire
weasel<->fox
But it is stupid to find a name that is a reaction to the original name.
wegface - 15.10.2006, 12:42 Uhr
Titel:
The name firefox suggests burning vermin, i cant see how anything can be worse than that...
Lets not forget Beryl, a womans name usually for the over 60's nowadays. Great for cutting edge desktop technology?
Amarok, sounds like Anorak- and takes months to learn to spell properly LOL.
ETC.
All names are dumb until they settle in. This applies to everything not just software.
titan - 15.10.2006, 13:01 Uhr
Titel:
There have been a few blogs and articles ranting about the Firefox fork, but is a true fork. I thought that the changes from the Mozilla code are just the same as when it was Debian Firefox with the change of name and logo. I suppose my concern would be with time compatability with plugins, extentions etc.
michaa - 15.10.2006, 15:31 Uhr
Titel:
it's over (make a d-u)
tbfkaff = icedove
lol
h2 - 15.10.2006, 18:39 Uhr
Titel:
as names go, icedove is for some reason neutral to me, not embarrassing to say, and doesn't really have any connotation at all, but since this is all over re the decision being made, from now I'll have to tell friends, ok, now click on the iceweasel thing to get to firefox... sorry for the name, geeks, what can I say?....
I'd say if this doesn't prove that debian truly has no interest in marketing nothing will, so I guess that's a plus in some ways.
Swynndla - 15.10.2006, 20:43 Uhr
Titel:
stryder hat folgendes geschrieben::
weasel: a cunning, sneaky person; Slang. an informer or stool pigeon; to evade an obligation or duty; to use weasel words is to be ambiguous or mislead.
No-one would choose a nickname anything like "swindler" either right?
HJH - 15.10.2006, 23:02 Uhr
Titel:
I just want to throw in my 2c here:
as far as I know the whole shebang from mozilla is now know as "icelizards"
the separate packages will probably be named the following:
firefox iceweasel
thunderbird icedove
seamonkey iceape
sunbird mooneagle
lightning snowstorm
Nothing is set in stone, but this is sort of the idea.
iceweasel, icedove and iceape are currently being worked on.
If you want a preview of what iceape is going to be like, go to: http://hjh.passys.nl/Debian/Experimental
hubi - 15.10.2006, 23:55 Uhr
Titel:
Badamtatarattam
HJH hat folgendes geschrieben::
will probably be named the following:
firefox iceweasel
thunderbird icedove
seamonkey iceape
sunbird mooneagle
lightning snowstorm
Where to get the infos what they are really named IF they are renamed?
hubi
HJH - 16.10.2006, 00:01 Uhr
Titel:
For sure they are going to be renamed!
The trademark issue is larger than just Firefox.
You can find more about it here:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermai ... html#start
hubi - 16.10.2006, 00:27 Uhr
Titel:
No *ice* yet in the repositories.
hubi
h2 - 16.10.2006, 01:50 Uhr
Titel:
icedove is in the ftp.us.debian repositories. Not yet iceweasel though
HJH - 16.10.2006, 12:08 Uhr
Titel:
Iceweasel and Iceape are still in development.
The person that builds them (Mike Hommey), is still building in their "old" names i.e. firefox and seamonkey, untill packaging and building options solidify.
The version of iceape I linked to, is very close to what is probably going to be in the repos in one or two weeks.
The reason I build them is that mozilla-suite is badly supported (enigmail for instance isn't available for it). For this version of Iceape, you can use the nightly from the enigmail site. It will work.
Hendrik-Jan
hubi - 16.10.2006, 14:56 Uhr
Titel:
HJH,
thx. I misunderstood the thing last night, thought they are already in Debian.
hubi
zulu9 - 16.10.2006, 16:33 Uhr
Titel: RE: Gnuzilla & Iceweasel it is, apparently
Very interesting reading. Facts about Debian and Mozilla Firefox:
http://times.debian.net/1022-iceweasel
and
http://sexylizard.org/images/foo.jpeg
The_Seeker - 16.10.2006, 17:05 Uhr
Titel: RE: Gnuzilla & Iceweasel it is, apparently
Zitat:
Very interesting reading. Facts about Debian and Mozilla Firefox:
http://times.debian.net/1022-iceweasel
Thanks zulu9, very interesting read indeed.
I was quite surprised to read that Ubuntu aren't being affected by this; I naturally assumed they would being a Debian-based distro and all.
HJH - 16.10.2006, 17:09 Uhr
Titel:
I guess you've probably already seen this, but there is a logo design thing going on here:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IceWeaselIcon
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IceDoveIcon
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IceApeIcon
And about Ubuntu: I'm not so sure...I've seen discussions about this in their mailinglists a well... I wouldn't be surprised if they'd also change the name after Debian.
Hendrik-Jan
slam - 16.10.2006, 17:14 Uhr
Titel: RE: Gnuzilla & Iceweasel it is, apparently
Just wait for IceSlam to show up in Debian sid ...
Greetings,
Chris
titan - 16.10.2006, 19:28 Uhr
Titel: Re: RE: Gnuzilla & Iceweasel it is, apparently
zulu9 hat folgendes geschrieben::
Very interesting reading. Facts about Debian and Mozilla Firefox:
Good links zulu9 and confirms my developing impression that Mozilla may be open source but is not too bothered about Linux or any other OS other than Windows. From the blogs linked and others I have read seems like Mozilla are spreading a few porkies about the real situation with Debian. Even Ian Murdock was having a rant, you would think he would know better 
DeepDayze - 17.10.2006, 01:22 Uhr
Titel: RE: Re: RE: Gnuzilla & Iceweasel it is, apparently
Jeez...wish this silly hoo-ha would just end...
Cathbard - 17.10.2006, 11:09 Uhr
Titel:
At least the Iceweasel icon will look better with the blue color scheme of Kanotix 2006. It's all for our benefit of course, secretly everybody wants to be kanotix.
kb0hae - 18.10.2006, 01:26 Uhr
Titel:
Huh...this whole issue is making me think about other browsers and email clients!
kenyee - 18.10.2006, 13:52 Uhr
Titel:
Dum question, but do we have to apt-get install iceweasel or will firefox magically turn into iceweasel on dist-upgrades? I noticed the icon changed already to a nice blue globe
The_Seeker - 18.10.2006, 14:21 Uhr
Titel:
Zitat:
Dum question, but do we have to apt-get install iceweasel or will firefox magically turn into iceweasel on dist-upgrades? I noticed the icon changed already to a nice blue globe
I'm assuming that just as Thunderbird became Icedove with a d-u, Firefox will become Iceweasel in the same fashion.
kstevek - 18.10.2006, 19:11 Uhr
Titel:
Hmmm, just upgraded my Thunderbird or should it be *censored* now
I decided to click the button promising to take me to the Icedove homepage, unfortunately it seems to mistakenly take me to the Mozilla site advocating Thunderbird!
Oh dear....
Is it only me or is this all slightly ammusing.
cheers kstevek
hotloophiker - 18.10.2006, 22:38 Uhr
Titel:
Poor me, I'm missing all the fun 
I purged FF and TB when I installed and then downloaded them from Mozilla. No strange creatures trolling my Kanotix.
Cathbard - 19.10.2006, 01:37 Uhr
Titel:
The debian verson has some patches to make it work better in debian than the one from mozilla. One of the gripes between mozilla and debian was about the patches that debian feed back. Mozilla claimed (and debian disputed) that debian fed too many patches back too close to the release date.
Mozilla Firefox is really aimed at Windows users and now that they are making squillions from their search engine and becoming a tax paying corporation this will become more so. It is good to have debian test it first before it goes on your machine.
Personally I feel safer using the version that debian has scrutinised and cleared. If that means calling it iceweasel then so be it.
(I've been using opera more these days anyway. In back to back tests it's been wiping the floor with FF. Now if I can find adblock for opera I'll be set )
bobdawn - 19.10.2006, 02:59 Uhr
Titel:
Cathbard, wouldn't running privoxy with Opera solve your problem?
I've used Konqueror as my browser for years and privoxy is one of a handful of programmes I've added to whichever distro I've used, immediately after installation (and about the same time that I configure Konqueror to accept all cookies, while replacing my cookie file with a symbolic link to /dev/null).
Cathbard - 19.10.2006, 07:14 Uhr
Titel:
Privoxy looks interesting, thanks for that. I've installed it and will give it a whirl. I suppose I'll have to learn how to configure it properly now.
bobdawn - 19.10.2006, 08:12 Uhr
Titel:
Cathbard, to use privoxy, open konqueror, go Settings >Configure >Proxy. Then "Manually specify..." and for HTTP, insert http://127.0.0.1 and change 8080 to 8118.
You may have to do "/etc/init.d/privoxy start", if it's not already running.
You can alter the default settings further, but I've never bothered.
Cathbard - 19.10.2006, 11:20 Uhr
Titel:
I have it working on Opera, FF and Iceweasel as well as konqueror and it seems to be working fine. 
I was mainly talking about fine tuning it but if defaults work then all the better. So far so good.
loyl1 - 05.11.2006, 05:41 Uhr
Titel:
Both Mozilla and Debian would be wise to consider the past. Software is like a river, calmly and gently winding by. After a time the river bed becomes clogged with silt. Suddenly, the river will change course, abandoning it's old route and find a more efficient path. Microsoft became the river-bed silt, which opened up opportunities for *NIX's and open source. People became dissatisfied and created new ways for people to get where they wanted to go.
Rivers can tolerate some twists and turns. But if either Mozilla or Debian let's their internal politics interfere with what the river wants, eventually the river will go around them.
The re-nameing of Firefox makes both Mozilla and Debian look like fools and does great harm to the open source movement.
Let's all go to work and campaign to install "IceWeasel" on the corporate desktops. No thanks.
jackiebrown - 05.11.2006, 06:01 Uhr
Titel:
bobdawn hat folgendes geschrieben::
I've used Konqueror as my browser for years and privoxy is one of a handful of programmes I've added
Thanks for that tip
mzilikazi - 05.11.2006, 16:30 Uhr
Titel:
Now might be a good time to try Swiftfox.
It comes in .deb flavor and the name Swiftfox is very accurate. I doubt that I'll be installing Firefox/Iceweasel (whatever) ever again.
Richard - 05.11.2006, 19:28 Uhr
Titel:
Kind of nice.
Seems they gain some speed by disabling anti-aliasing.
Or maybe I broke it? I'll keep it running for a while to see.
It does seem more peppy than the old Firefox.
Edit: It is definitely faster. Seems a worthwhile change.
Wonder if it will ever make it into Sid?
piper - 05.11.2006, 19:51 Uhr
Titel:
apt-get install IceSlam
Damn fast and good looking to !!
mzilikazi - 05.11.2006, 22:38 Uhr
Titel:
piper hat folgendes geschrieben::
apt-get install IceSlam
Damn fast and good looking to !!
Hmm I didn't find it in the Kanotix repo. Am I missing something?
DeepDayze - 05.11.2006, 23:01 Uhr
Titel:
Think piper meant that as a joke, mz
piper - 06.11.2006, 02:08 Uhr
Titel:
Yes, it was a joke
mzilikazi - 06.11.2006, 13:20 Uhr
Titel:
Richard - 06.11.2006, 16:57 Uhr
Titel:
Swiftfox is very nice. I like it more and more.
I like the name much more than IceWeasel.
Weasels are not one of the world's most beloved creatures.
They're weasels.
slam - 06.11.2006, 17:11 Uhr
Titel:
I don't like foxes, weasels or swifts - prefer slams!
I also don't like my pc burn like fire - prefer it ice cold.
That's how IceSlam was born.
Greetings,
Chris
Alle Zeiten sind GMT + 1 Stunde
PNphpBB2 © 2003-2007