[Marketing-Public]Re: feedback request: mozilla redistribution and trademarks

Bart Decrem marketing-public at mozilla.org
Mon, 29 Sep 2003 12:01:26 -0700

Jason Kersey wrote:

> Bart Decrem wrote:
> This all looks quite good.  I would make sure that not only the dino, 
> but all Mozilla artwork is included, and that it's very strongly 
> protected.  You can see already the amount of crappy renditions there 
> are of the dino, and with that being our brand, we need to make sure 
> it's clear.

There's an inherent conflict here. 

I think we should be very restrictive about licensing our own dino and 
only let people use it in conjunction with our software.  So if that's 
the case, then sites like Mozillazine, Mozillanews, Mozdev etc. could 
NOT use our dino.  This probably will lead some of these sites to make 
their own dinos.

So I think we can:
1- license our dino more liberally to community sites like Mozdev etc
2- not license our dino and let people make ugly dinos
3- not license our dino and not let people make ugly dinos

I think we'll have to chose between 1 and 2.


> jason
>> Hi folks,
>> I'm working on trademark policies and of course one of the biggest 
>> issues is how to manage our trademarks (the lizard icon and the 
>> Mozilla name) with redistribution of our software.  The MPL of course 
>> lets people redistribute our products all they we do have trademarks 
>> and an obligation to protect them, lest we lose them because of our 
>> failure to enforce them.
>> I would like input from people on this list on the appropriate policy 
>> for Mozilla.  Over the next few weeks, I'd like to make a proposal to 
>> the staff, and then Mitchell will have to give final approval to 
>> whatever comes out of that.  So this is the beginning of the process.
>> Again, all of the provisions below are about the use of the Mozilla 
>> name for promoting or describing software, not redistribution of the 
>> software itself.
>> Basically, I'm thinking we need to balance out protecting our marks 
>> with the culture and sense of community of open source.  Therefore, 
>> I'm thinking of proposing something like this:
>> 1- If you are redistributing unmodified versions or versions with 
>> "minor modifications" of recent stable releases of Mozilla, you can 
>> use the Mozilla name without requiring our approval. This includes 
>> CD, online and any other form of distribution.  You can advertise 
>> that you're shipping or selling Mozilla.  So, for instance, the 
>> Mozillaoncd.com folks would be entitled to market the product they 
>> sell as Mozilla 1.4;
>> 2- Minor modifications: This includes things like: changing the start 
>> page and bookmarks, changing themes, adding extensions (for Moz 
>> Firebird and Thunderbird), adding plugins, pre-installing the 
>> software on CDs or computers, and translating or localizing the 
>> software, and making minor bug fixes (but bug fixes must be provided 
>> upstream).  I know this is pretty fluid, but it's probably hard to 
>> define minor modifications with greater precision;
>> 3- Advance written permission is required if the software is modified 
>> in other ways;
>> 4- Permission can be withdrawn, if, after receiving notice, a 
>> distributor fails to make best efforts to address our concerns about 
>> shipping a recent product and ensuring that the product is of high 
>> quality.  So if you're shipping old versions of software and we put 
>> you on notice, you have to fix that or lose trademark permission.  If 
>> you've made some minor changes or localization work that degrades the 
>> quality of the product, and we put you on notice, you have to fix 
>> that or lose trademark permission.  Permission can also be withdrawn 
>> if use of the mark would be detrimental to the Mozilla mark in any 
>> other way (so if the KKK wants to distribute the KKK Mozilla browser, 
>> we would object to their use of our trademark on the cover of the CD 
>> and in their marketing materials);
>> 5- Modifying our name is not permitted without advance written 
>> permission.  So if you want to call a product Moz 1.4 or MozillaPL, 
>> you need advance written permission.  We would probably try and 
>> accommodate community efforts, such as the localization efforts, and 
>> allow them to use slightly modified version of the Mozilla name.  In 
>> the case of Moz 1.4, if that product is the same as Mozilla 1.4, we'd 
>> probably not allow them to name it Moz 1.4 since that will confuse 
>> people.  They can call the product some other name though, if they 
>> want, or they can call it Mozilla 1.4;
>> 6- Use of the word Mozilla or related names (such as Moz) for company 
>> names, project names and web site domain names  would always require 
>> permission.  We would probably not allow commercial ventures to use 
>> the name Mozilla (so the domain name mozillaoncd.com would have to be 
>> changed).  We would allow community efforts, such as projects on 
>> Mozdev and localization projects to include the name Mozilla or Moz 
>> in the project name or web site address as long as such use doesn't 
>> create some specific problem for us.  So mozdev.org, mozillanews.org, 
>> mozillazine.org etc are OK;
>> 7- We would of course try and stop clear infringements such as the 
>> name of the Stopzilla utility for IE, which clearly creates consumer 
>> confusion;
>> 8- The t-rex icon is ours.  You must get our permission before using 
>> it.  Community efforts will receive such permission, commercial 
>> efforts may not be able to use this artwork.
>> Of course, the proposal is not a conceptual proposal, so the wording 
>> would change.
>> Note that this proposal is a lot more liberal than for instance Red 
>> Hat, which doesn't allow CD vendors to market their product as Red 
>> Hat Linux, even if the software is unmodified.  I think that makes 
>> sense since we are a non-profit effort and are eager to achieve broad 
>> adoption.
>> Thoughts?
>> Bart