Debian Linux and Mozilla have been coming to legal loggerheads over the ties between Mozilla’s copyright over the Firefox trademark and the distro-specific patching and repackaging of Firefox. Mozilla’s mandate is that any operating system distributor (Debian, Haiku, etc.) can use the Firefox logo and name for their distribution as long as its in “unaltered source-code” form; otherwise, if Debian wants to patch the browser without Mozilla’s help, they will still be able to distribute the browser, but stripped of any Mozilla/Firefox reference.
This has led to a proposed renaming of The-browser-formerly-known-as-Firefox to a name that would be the direct opposite of “Firefox”: Iceweasel. It will be shorn of non-Free plugins and components, and will also include tweaks for increased privacy protection.
It’s already being distributed.
Of course, GNOME (y’know, of “KDE vs. GNOME” fame) already has its own fork of Firefox with similar goals, known as Epiphany.
So now I’m wondering: has there always been a rocky relationship between operating systems and the applications which run on them?
The application makers have to rely upon the operating system makers (in Linux, that would be app>desktop environment>operating system) and their general goodwill for distribution. Often times, the OS distributor will be far less concerned with applications (and more with their own distribution), and won’t give them the time or the day.
That’s mostly the case with Linux. Each distro has its own distribution schedule, goals, markets, and prerequisites. You see that with Ubuntu, you see that with Gentoo, you see that with the majority of them.
However, this is the first time that I’ve seen a Linux distribution (Debian) actually take applications this seriously! Usually, it would be the desktop makers (KDE, GNOME, etc.) who would govern the distribution of applications (based upon their favored APIs, such as GTK+ or Qt); the typical distro’s job would simply be to slap either/both desktops on.
But this makes some sense for Debian to take its applications seriously; they’re notorious for, among other things, being one of the slowest and most-irregularly released distributions of Linux in existence. As a result, while Ubuntu (with its 6 month release and its focus upon the GNOME release cycle) has a friendly desktop, Debian (with its focus upon stability) has both desktop and server users, and is guaranteed to often have more applications in their repositories than Ubuntu (and most other Linux distributions).
In terms of their relationship with applications, I could compare Debian with Apple. Apple has a very, very strong emphasis upon both stability and backwards compatibility (which explains both Rosetta and Universal, both of which maintain compatibility with PowerPC G3 on up), and has fostered a very strong relationship between the OS and the applications (both in-house and third party) which run on it.
So, far from a descent into infamy for Mozilla (as the FOSS stalwarts see it), I think this is a perfect opportunity for Debian to get into more than just the operating system for a change. Other distros are looking for self-fulfillment, or being the better, in-vogue OS (with less regard to the applications which run on it). Debian, on the other hand, seeks to be a (completely) free and stable operating system; I guess now that means that its more than the OS which needs to be free and stable, even if it means bringing the application into the corral with everything else.
They could do it. I mean, Apple did the same with KHTML, right?.
Your post isn’t entirely correct. IceWeasel is the name of the Firefox fork by the GNU group. This is different and separate from the Firefox Debian is distributing. Debian I don’t believe has decided on an official name yet, and I don’t think they will be using this name.
The clash comes from Debian’s rules about free software. They will not include anything that is trademarked or not free. The Firefox logo is trademarked so they modify the code to change the logo. Mozilla has stated that if the logo is changed, the program cannot be called Firefox as it is an infringment on the trademark. Also Mozilla has stated any patches or modifications to Firefox must be approved by them first.
Is there a rocky relationship between OS vendors and applications? I don’t think so. First, Debian is not an OS, it is a distribution of an OS. Linux is the OS. Linus and the core Linux group don’t have the time to bicker or worry about applications, they focus on making the guts of the OS. Debian’s job is to package everything together so the user doesn’t have to go to a billion websites and compile source code to use their computer. GNOME and KDE don’t take this responsbility either, they only package and maintain their own suites. Debian made the decision to package Firefox, not GNOME/KDE.
This is how open source works, you are free to change and modify the code if you don’t like what the original program does. Where the problem comes in is trademarks/copyrights on the brandname. Mozilla doesn’t care what Debian does to Firefox, they are just saying if it is changed, it can’t be called Firefox anymore.
First, Debian is not an OS, it is a distribution of an OS. Linux is the OS.
Actually, Linux is the kernel. The GNU userland combined with the kernel creates the fully functional operating system (hence “GNU/Linux”, although Linus and the FSF disagree over the name). The package management system (APT/DPKG, Portage, RPM, etc.) selected further defines the system as being specific to a single distributor.
Source.
I mean, you can use the Solaris kernel with the GNU userland and APT/dpkg and create a system out of it. But are you going to call it a “Solaris OS”?
Not really (OK, maybe you could). That, of course, would be Nexenta OS.