Talk:Debian–Mozilla trademark dispute

message: How about an article about that as well?
There's an early (1985, maybe?) Matt Groening cartoon, I believe from "Love is Hell," that has the punchline, "At night, the ice weasels come."
Good question!  There is a "real" (cute) animal in a "real" picture at http://iceweasel.com/, but there is no reason to think that it is really called an iceweasel -- can't find any google evidence of such. 69.87.193.234 00:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there an animal named iceweasel? 

message: Iceweasel's great in concept; however, there's little detail anywhere on what exactly in Firefox didn't meet GNU standards of Free-dom, and what same will be replaced with.  The best I can find is a tenuous link to Plugger, which depends on mplayer, which basically depends on legally grey use of win32 binaries where available; AFAIK, Moz Foundation Firefox ships with no major multimedia plugins at all.  This should be clarified, as it will be the big "visible" difference between official Mozilla Foundation releases and the patchset/"psuedo-fork" GNU will maintain for the convenience of third-parties deriving.
--155.212.34.122 15:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is the trademark restrictions on the name 'Firefox' and the Firefox logos. The point was that Mozilla uses its trademark to prevent anyone from modifying Firefox and still calling it Firefox, and therefore the 'no restriction on modifications' requirement of free software is not met. Cynical 18:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The non-free software in official mozilla.org builds is the Talkback crash reporting tool, though its "removal" from IceWeasel doesn't mean much - you can't build it unofficially even if you want to. - rdmsoft 06:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: the best reference for the whole issue is the debian bug report thread submitted by mozilla where a mozilla representitive is in a tight argument with various people from debian. 130.88.162.90 18:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plugins... 

message: I'm running Firefox, so was concerned about the claim here of privacy holes in my browser....
*"   1.  Some sites refer to zero-size images on other hosts to keep track of cookies. When IceWeasel detects this mechanism it blocks cookies from the site hosting the zero-length image file. (It is possible to re-enable such a site by removing it from the blocked hosts list.)"
**1. Web bugs - the claim that Firefox has a 3rd party cookie web bug hole appear (in my superficial analysis to be only partially correct) FF has a setting network.cookie.cookieBehavior that controls 3rd party cookies. In my browser it was set to 1 which means  that all 3rd party cookies are blocked, no additional 0 size image blocking is needed. That's as long as it functions according to the documentation. I ran the online test, but I am non the wiser. Note that the default setting is 0 = allow all including 3rd party, so somewhere along the line, my setting has changed.
**CONCLUSION = check and adjust Firefox setting
*"   2. Other sites rewrite the host name in links redirecting the user to another site, mainly to "spy" on clicks. When this behavior is detected, IceWeasel shows a message alerting the user."
**OK. Seems like an improvement. I personally would prefer a location prompt to come up, with a suggested rewrite of the destination, that I could correct if I knew it was wrong. Any IceWeasel developers here?
**CONCLUSION = minor improvement (only provides warning, as far as I know)
CONCLUSION = yes improvement, but not in itself as important as setting your options correctly. Widefox 00:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Web bugs 

message: Yes, yes. We all love the humper icon. But there are two official sources of information about browsers called Icweasel: gnu.org and debian.org. The site using the humper icon, geticeweasel.org is not registered to either: see whois info. Yes, the plain globe is boring. It's good to know that the Ubuntu folks are drawing icons, but until they start actually shipping something besides icons, let's stick with the image that's actually being used by the major distributor of this browser.
Besides, ChrisBaird is right. It doesn't even look like a weasel! —ptk✰fgs 13:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like debian has picked up two of the logos now, one as an icon and another (which is the wrong size/shape for use as an icon) for tha about box. Plugwash 01:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correction it seems the ones debian are using were a pair designed to go together. Plugwash 21:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humper 

message: Rename. Debian's Iceweasel has a lowercase 'w', like Firefox has a lowercase 'f' for fox. I propose that this article be renamed to use the name Iceweasel, for Debian's usage. Though I acknowledge GNU's IceWeasel does have the capital W, the phrase was coined in 2004 as Iceweasel by Dorland on debian-devel and debian-legal, and it is a more apropos analog to the Firefox name. pbryan 01:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it's already done, but I think you are right, and this is the capitalization we should prefer. —ptk✰fgs 03:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed rename: Iceweasel (lowercase 'w')

message: the earliest reference i know of for the iceape name is the "facts about" blog post, i thought icedove was mentioned there too but either it wasnt or someone removed it (it is mentioned in the comments there though which suggests the removal hypothosis). Plugwash 12:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  icedove and iceape names 

message: What user agent string does Iceweasel use? Is it the same as Firefox? I think the article should mention that.Danny 23:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In Sid: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.3) Gecko/20070310 Iceweasel/2.0.0.3 (Debian-2.0.0.3-2) (2007-05-06 17:00 CEST) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.11.184.2 (talk) 15:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, and it breaks my online banking.  STAB. Vashti 02:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  User Agent 

message: * Which of them  is considered stable and which preview release? 
[...] Debian backports any required security fixes to whatever versions of software are shipped in their stable releases until support for those stable releases are dropped; the Iceweasel rename represents no change in this regard. [...]
So stable should be the latest Debian Etch security advisory? (currently: )     and no preview release?
* Iceweasel does not actually have a home page. I think it is better to not mention it at all or link to http://packages.debian.org/iceweasel.
What do you think about it?
84.50.241.254 17:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iceweasel home page and latest/preview releases 

message: I don't want to add this to the article, as I don't know much more than I am about to say, and am not sure if it is notable, hopefully someone with more knowledge of the subject can decide this.
From what I understand, Debian stable (Etch), has changed versions of Iceweasel, from 2.0.0.5, to 2.0.0.6, and maybe it was changed before that.  The reason I feel this is of interest, is because that is not normal Debian policy for stable, normally in stable packages never receive a version number upgrade, only security updates.  In this case i think the
exception was made because it was security issues that meant it would be
a good idea to actually change version.  Although this page seems more about the naming conflict, i couldn't find another page solely for iceweasel (debian), so thought if this should go anywhere, here it must be. Champion sound remix 03:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because  what's a version upgrade for the package name, is just a security update for Mozilla. In case they (Debian) decide for some reason, that such a change is harmful, they can use “3.0.0” as the base version, but more likely add the minor number to it somehow (like they already did, and I think that was a Mozilla-derived thing), instead of only “lenny1” or whatever. I guess what matters is the priority and availability from security.debian.org. --AVRS 07:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In that last sentence, I was thinking “testing”. Please ignore it. --AVRS 07:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Debians policy regarding security updates is to make the changes required to fix the vulnerability without changing anything else. If upstream have done just that then there is no point in causing confusion by not using thier number for it. Plugwash 12:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iceweasel in Debian, version upgrade 

message: s far as I recall, the Mozilla Corporation requires that the Firefox trademark only be used on unmodified software (ie distributed as it comes from the Mozilla Corporation). Debian is 'violates' this in that the stable version of Firefox is not to be updated to a newer release to fix security issues. Instead, security patches are backported to the old version, thus modifying what the Mozilla Corporation initially distributed and making the use of the Firefox Trademark impossible. Somebody would have to look up the whole picture, but I believe the Debian stable policy did play a role in the rename of Firefox.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.4.195.228 (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The issue was not just the logo 

message: Small note about verb tenses: "Mozilla Corporation software rebranded in Debian" sounds like the content will be a list.  Using a present tense would be more appropriate.  The interesting topic isn't the software, is the reasons, background, and reactions to the rebranding. --Gronky 23:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a suggestion of a title using present tense?--Chealer 11:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title tenses 

message: In the last paragraph of the "Origins of the issue and of the Iceweasel name" section:
:Debian was given permission to use the trademarks, and adopted the Firefox name
This sentence needs a date, and an explanation of how they "adopted the Firefox name".  The next sentence says they stayed with the Iceweasel name (for logo issues) - so did they really adopt it?  If so, did they adopt it for just a very short time?
A very confusing line needing explanation.  Thanks. --Gronky 14:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing bit 

message: Maybe some discussion of how the mozilla foundation has really turned into a joke. As the code has gotten better and more usable, more the foundation has been a disapointment. Instead as serving as an important bullwark of the open source community, its now a useless IPO startup trying to make millions from somekind of wacky webmail scam. what the fuck is going on?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.17.4.153 (talk) 01:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failure of the Mozilla Foundation 

message: approved. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 19:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merger of  Iceape, Iceowl and Icedove  

message: This article is about the dispute with Debian over naming. It has nothing to do with the general case of rebranding Mozilla software which is the program at http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/about/partnerships.html . I know this article was renamed once before to this, so I'm going to wait a week or so and rename it to "Debian rebranding controversy with Mozilla". SInce that is a really crappy name, I'd also like suggestions for better ones. While it's possible to make this about Mozilla rebranding and be almost all a section on the dispute, that seems dumb. Cpu111 (talk) 14:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: the original title Mozilla Corporation software rebranded in Debian or Debian rebranding controversy with Mozilla? I think the former is better, if someone wants to write an article about rebranding Mozilla software http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/about/partnerships.html thats fine, i suggest Mozoogle as a title. Mion (talk) 22:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Renamed to Mozilla Corporation software rebranded by the Debian project. --Chealer (talk) 20:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change title to match the content 

message: The should be a page for IceWeasel and one for IceCat, they are independent and Debian's IceWeasel deserves it's own wiki page. I don't know why is IceCat considered more important than IceWeasel, please explain well the differences between them.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.141.228.127 (talk) 02:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debian's IceWeasel 

message: Does the Firefox EULA debate really belong here? It's only remotely related to rebranding. Rebranding would have been a way for Ubuntu to avoid the EULA, but Ubuntu decided against a browser-that-dare-not-speak-its-name, and Mozilla eventually retracted the EULA. So the issue is settled, and this section is just confusing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.27.35 (talk) 23:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OTOH, part of the Ubuntu response was to make ABrowser, which is a rebranded Firefox -- so it fits right into this article. Unfortunately, ABrowser is not even mentioned here, and really should be. Can someone familiar with this Ubuntu debate write up an expanded version including ABrowser (and sourced, naturally)? --24.7.241.89 (talk) 03:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Removed. --Chealer (talk) 20:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  EULA debate? 

message: There is a reference in the lead to Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free ?, which suggests that the need to rebrand didn't appear in 2006, but in 2004. Currently the article doesn't present that information well. I wonder how Thunderbird could have stayed improperly branded despite that request for 20 months. I asked on pkg-mozilla-maintainers whether Mozilla changed its mind between 2004 and 2006 but got no answer yet. --Chealer (talk) 20:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins of the issue 

message: Matt Groening was the one who came up with the phrase ice weasel for "Love is Hell" back in the 1980's: "Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night, the ice weasels come". AnonMoos (talk) 23:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Groening

message: I just read the article. Still don't understand why Debian can't (won't/isn't allowed) to use Firefox.
Could someone explain (either here, or directly in the article) the logic chain that lead to Iceweasel in concise, non-tech, non-lawyer english?
Thanks, 213.66.219.48 (talk) 12:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The software code is Open Source licensed, but the "Firefox" name and logo are trademarked, and additional conditions (beyond those of the open source license governing the programming language code) were placed on use of the trademarks.  Trademark is separate from copyright... AnonMoos (talk) 08:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  simple explanation of the issue 

message: somebody should really explain what differences these products from the original Mozilla products are. I know that the Debian projects doesn't include the APNG patches. As well the license. what else is missing or more integrated? mabdul 17:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "to do-list" 

message: [...]“Iceweasel” was subsequently used as the example name for a rebranded Firefox in the Mozilla Trademark Policy, [...]
The article cites the current version of the policy. However the reference to Iceweasel only occurs in prior versions of the policy up to six years ago . --Kakurady (talk) 02:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold! and change it/correct it. mabdul 13:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Kakurady (talk) 00:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iceweasel as trademark policy example of rebanding not in citation given 

message: I recall that at the time, Mozilla originally allowed "community versions" of Firefox to be called "Firefox". They then tightened the policy, and I recall that this was because people were distributing Windows binaries called "Firefox" that complied with the rules but contained adware and/or spyware, and they tightened up to deal with this, and Debian's use got caught up in it. Memory is bunk, of course, so I wouldn't trust mine without a source or two. Does anyone else recall events anything like this, or even have any quality of source to this effect? - David Gerard (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sure I had read about this somewhere else before, but cannot remember source nor its reliability. --Isacdaavid (talk) 17:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for Mozilla tightening trademark policy? 

message: The first sentence in this encyclopedic article about Mozilla Corporation software rebranded by the Debian project is not too well written as it is right now. --95.34.150.242 (talk) 23:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well we are a bit constrained by WP:LEDE, but what would you suggest would be better? - Ahunt (talk) 00:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article introduction 

message: As discussed already in the talk end 2006 (Debian NOT simply rebranding) the conflict started NOT with Mozilla enforcing brand rights. The "brand right card" was the response of Mozilla on the claim of Debian on having the last word on the user experience of a application. Mozilla was asking for a development model where Debian would push updates/patches upstream to Mozilla instead of maintaining own "mini"-forks (distro patches). This was a conflict how the development process of (Mozilla) applications should be organized, and where both participants were insisting, that their way was the right way. Therefore, without a compromise, this was ending in a clash and fork. Shaddim (talk) 16:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: As per WP:V we need references to be cited to add this! - Ahunt (talk) 16:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: True, than everyone collect references. As starting point for the mozilla debian conflict: http://glandium.org/blog/?p=97 http://benjamin.smedbergs.us/blog/2006-02-22/debian-versioning-of-mozilla-libraries-harmful/ http://web.archive.org/web/20110917151210/http://blog.sillica.com/2008/06/11/debian-troubling-signs-can-slackware-teach-us-anything/ http://web.archive.org/web/20100814205225/http://practical-tech.com/operating-system/linux/open-source-security-idiots/ "Why didn’t the OpenSSL team catch this problem? They didn’t spot it because they didn’t see it. You see Debian developers have this cute habit of keeping their changes to themselves rather than passing them upstream to any program’s actual maintainers. Essentially, what Debian ends up doing is forking programs. There’s the Debian version and then there’s the real version." Shaddim (talk) 08:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

text: Not of citable quality, but during the leadup to Mozilla 1.0 the variation that Debian put into Mozilla got to be a real nuisance, particularly when trying to decode Mozilla versions via user agent string - David Gerard (talk) 13:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately I don't see any refs noted above that meet WP:RS. They all seem to be WP:SPS. - Ahunt (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is not surprising as I called them starting points. You are also invited to find fitting ones. Shaddim (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

text: More material: https://lwn.net/Articles/552920/ "Much of the reason that Debian created the non-branded versions of Firefox and Thunderbird stemmed from its insistence on backporting security fixes. " http://www.debian.org/security/2013/dsa-2699 "Multiple security issues have been found in Iceweasel, Debian's version of the Mozilla Firefox web browser: [...] We're changing the approach for security updates for Iceweasel, Icedove and Iceape in stable-security: Instead of backporting security fixes, we now provide releases based on the Extended Support Release branch." Debians continued desire to backport themself fixes to outdated firefox versions was the origin of the argue. As thought by Mozilla this burden was to big for debian and the users were left in a insecure state with iceweasel. 2013 Debian dropped their strict and non-practical policy for the stable release.  more: http://research.rolfes.org/computers/surprised-by-security-vulnerabilities-in-my-debian-desktop/  http://web.archive.org/web/20120114083548/http://desktoplinux.com/news/NS9068065177.html http://web.archive.org/web/20071219225255/http://www.linux.com/articles/57675 http://www.heise.de/open/artikel/Debian-vs-Mozilla-oder-Namen-sind-Schall-und-Rauch-221989.html http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/blog/?p=211 http://web.archive.org/web/20070403170746/http://cbeard.typepad.com/mozilla/2006/10/mozilla_tradema.html Chris Beard is VP of Marketing and Product Management for Mozilla Corporation. - Mozilla, Trademarks and Debian Shaddim (talk) 13:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article misses the point 

message: Isn't one of the most significant differences that the Iceweasel fork removes DRM (EME)?  Mozilla has caved in to the DRM lobby - on (IMHO) dubious grounds - and now ships Mozilla (38) with DRM support built in.  Iceweasel removes this features (EME, sandbox) as I understand it.  Unfortunately I've been unable to ixquick a definitive statement to this affect.  I believe this is correct modulo some semantic details (the DRM isn't precisely pre-installed, but the software to automatically install it is). 185.55.60.122 (talk) 10:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that Firefox has no DRM, but that EME can install it if desired. To add a statement that this is not the case in Iceweasel we need a ref to cite. - Ahunt (talk) 11:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iceweasel has no DRM 

message: https://packages.debian.org/jessie/iceweasel <--Repos are now (2016-06-10) pushing out a dummy package that has firefox-esr as a dependency. 75.88.64.152 (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iceweasel has been discontinued 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mozilla software rebranded by Debian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120723162603/http://viewvc.svn.mozilla.org/vc/projects/mozilla.org/trunk/foundation/trademarks/policy.html?revision=39674&view=markup to http://viewvc.svn.mozilla.org/vc/projects/mozilla.org/trunk/foundation/trademarks/policy.html?revision=39674&view=markup
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: is here FYI. -- Yae4 (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:RSN]] Discussion of a source cited in this article