Rob Sayre's Mozilla Blog

I was pretty surprised by the level of vitriol and negativity present in Mark Pilgrim’s article Gobuntu has already failed. In particular, I was surprised by the line

“And before you say it, no, this is not a trademark issue. Anyone who thinks it’s a trademark issue has been baffled by the bullshit emanating from the Mozilla Corporation.”

Yikes. Now, I’m no lawyer, but I can’t think of anything you’re not allowed to do with the Mozilla logos that are permitted by the ones listed below. Of course, Mark has already declared that I’m misinformed or lying by daring to question his argument, so take all this with a grain of salt. Here are some applications he references as “trademarked open source applications”:

Apache: “‘Apache’, ‘Apache Software Foundation’, the multicoloured feather, and the various Apache project names and logos are trademarks of The Apache Software Foundation, and are usable by others only with express permission from the ASF. References to any of them must be acknowledged with text resembling, ‘Apache is a trademark of The Apache Software Foundation, and is used with permission.’ This is not necessary in the case of all-inclusive attribution language such as, ‘All marks are the properties of their respective owners.’ Contact the ASF Public Relations Committee with all inquiries regarding trademark issues.” [emphasis added]

This appears under a trademark section, but the restrictions sound very restrictive to me.

BitTorrent: “Our Open Source License (www.bittorrent.com/license.html) does not grant any rights to use of our marks.” The page then goes on to list several restrictions on usage that overlap with trademark and copyright.

MySQL has several policies on the matter. Here’s one: “MySQL AB reserves the right to revoke this authorization at any time in its sole discretion.”

Of course, Open Source has a definition, and I think it would be a little premature to assume it applies to logos. After all, it is defined in terms of Software, Programs, and Source Code. So, while debian-legal can certainly decide which terms they’re comfortable with, they do not define the term Open Source, and neither does Mark Pilgrim. Well, maybe he does. I found the glaring inconsistencies in the wikipedia page a little disconcerting, so I looked at the history.

Really now, citing yourself as a reference? I think honest debate about logo usage for Open Source software should be welcomed. But I think this is more like getting shouted at, and the conquest of buzzwords is pretty much social violence. I would like to understand the use cases here a little better. What is it that the current arrangement prevents? Maybe with that understanding, we can make progress on this issue without shouting over definitions of terms.

P.S. — I work on Open Source, Free Software. Go ahead, ask me about it. I can tell you about everything I’m working on, as long as it doesn’t touch on personal details that require tact and discretion (HR issues, essentially). I don’t think Mark can say that.