Palemoon trademark policy and fsf directory listing

General project discussion.
Use this as a last resort if your topic does not fit in any of the other boards but it still on-topic.
Forum rules
This General Discussion board is meant for topics that are still relevant to Pale Moon, web browsers, browser tech, UXP applications, and related, but don't have a more fitting board available.

Please stick to the relevance of this forum here, which focuses on everything around the Pale Moon project and its user community. "Random" subjects don't belong here, and should be posted in the Off-Topic board.
User avatar
nparafe
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 6
Joined: 2022-11-29, 07:29
Contact:

Palemoon trademark policy and fsf directory listing

Unread post by nparafe » 2022-11-30, 08:06

First of all I would like to give a big thumbs up to the developers of Palemoon, for their commitment to privacy and their courage to do all this hard work to maintain a web browser while being independent from big corporations.

I would like to inform you about some concerns that people like me, who have deep concern about software freedom, have about the trademark policy of Palemoon.

In the recent days there has been some discussion in some forum threads like the one in: https://trisquel.info/en/forum/thoughts ... -seamonkey
I believe that the following (about the inclusion of Palemoon in Free Software Directory) summarize this concerns:
----

I think Pale Moon is not a good candidate for the Directory, and this
is why. I don't intend for this to be an all-exhaustive list for all
of the concerns about the redistribution license when someone is
exercising Freedom #2; only to show that software freedom problems
exist with it.

Pale Moon has a similar trademark problem with Firefox [0]:
> There is NO CHARGE for the download or distribution of the browser
> package.

As explained in the Free Software Definition, all four freedoms must
be available on both a commercial and non-commercial basis. This
serves to limit Freedom 2 to gratis distribution only, making the
software nonfree. The FSF has previously communicated that such a
thing in a trademark policy makes it nonfree [1]. Perhaps someone
could host a rebranded verion of Pale Moon that doesn't have this
problem, much like how GNU IceCat solves the problem for Firefox, but
Pale Moon itself seems ineligible for being in the Free Software
Directory.

In addition:

3a seems to contain restrictions on exactly how Pale Moon can be
distributed (can't be part of AppImage, flatpak, or SNAP). With free
software, people should be able to package programs for use with
any kind of package management system.

#4 on the prohibition of "download managers" might be able to be
interpreted as not allowing other package managers like APT or
RPM too since they also function as a way to download software.

Finally:

* We reserve the right to withdraw permission for the use of official
branding and/or redistribution of officially-branded binaries
either as a whole or for specific target environments at any time,
with or without stated reason.

This affects someone's ability to exercise Freedom #2 where the
ability to share exact copies can be terminated at any time and for
any reason. This seems to go against this part of the Free Software
Definition that: "In order for these freedoms to be real, they must be
permanent and irrevocable as long as you do nothing wrong; if the
developer of the software has the power to revoke the license, or
retroactively add restrictions to its terms, without your doing
anything wrong to give cause, the software is not free."

If Freedom #2 can be revoked at their will the software should not be
considered free.

0: https://www.palemoon.org/redist.shtml
1: https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/g ... 00014.html
----

Personally I respect that you are free to choose the trademark and the licences you want. I am just making this concerns known to you with the hope that there will be a productive discussion about it, as I believe that Palemoon browser (and epyrus as well) are a better base than other alternatives for people who value their freedom.

Disclaimer: I am not affiliated with FSF and Trisquel in any way other than supporting their work and using their software.

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 35402
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: Motala, SE
Contact:

Re: Palemoon trademark policy and fsf directory listing

Unread post by Moonchild » 2022-11-30, 09:42

Sorry but Freedom #2 is not in jeopardy. It is both gratis and libre, however the trademark and branding is not, has never been, and will not be.
As explained elsewhere, the branding is primarily a mark of quality, and the redistribution license as such aims to ensure that users get what they intend to get when they download and install Pale Moon. Specific accommodations are made for the use and distribution on free software platforms (see 8).
nparafe wrote:
2022-11-30, 08:06
#4 on the prohibition of "download managers" might be able to be
interpreted as not allowing other package managers like APT or
RPM too since they also function as a way to download software.
See 4a! Why is this even brought up? it's explicitly made N/A for package managers while still prohibiting the bad practice of ad/malware ridden stubs piggybacking on the free availability of software (unfortunately still a thing...)
nparafe wrote:
2022-11-30, 08:06
3a seems to contain restrictions on exactly how Pale Moon can be
distributed (can't be part of AppImage, flatpak, or SNAP). With free
software, people should be able to package programs for use with
any kind of package management system.
This prohibition is in place due to GNUs own policy and licensing. Such packages would be bundling GPL licensed libraries along with Pale Moon, in a single package, which would make it a "larger work" because it would be executable as-is, and won't be executable without the package being complete with included GPL libs. The GPL then enforces that all code in that larger work be GPL licensed. That is hard-incompatible with the MPL and our branding/trademark. This is why this specific restriction exists and is stated without going into the gritty of incompatible licensing. This is a concise summary restriction to prevent poor licensing practice.
nparafe wrote:
2022-11-30, 08:06
* We reserve the right to withdraw permission for the use of official
branding and/or redistribution of officially-branded binaries
either as a whole or for specific target environments at any time,
with or without stated reason.
This is in place for us to retain control over our branding. If there's an egregious misuse of it we can officially tell parties to stop redistribution of trademarked/officially branded software.

If this makes Pale Moon as-is and with official branding incompatible to be listed in the FSF directory, then so be it, and we simply won't have Pale Moon listed.
I will not relinquish control over my trademark and brand just to be included in some listing. There is no real demand for that kind of FSF recognition in spite of everything.
Rebranding is of course always OK. It is still FOSS. Just don't stick our official label on it if you aren't going to adhere to the licensing we have.
Thanks for understanding :)

(If someone from the FSF wants to reach out in private directly to discuss this with me, e.g. if they really feel they want Pale Moon and are willing to convince me to give up my property for the betterment of free software, they just need to shoot me an e-mail to moonchild@ our domain. I'm not entirely inflexible ;) )
"Sometimes, the best way to get what you want is to be a good person." -- Louis Rossmann
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb
"Linux makes everything difficult." -- Lyceus Anubite

User avatar
nparafe
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 6
Joined: 2022-11-29, 07:29
Contact:

Re: Palemoon trademark policy and fsf directory listing

Unread post by nparafe » 2022-12-15, 12:38

Thank you for your reply.
Of course I respect the fact those are your positions. I also believe that it is positive that both arguments and counter arguments are public.

FYI, FSF currently published Copyright assignment with the FSF . Maybe you can find some more info there.
Cheers!

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 35402
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: Motala, SE
Contact:

Re: Palemoon trademark policy and fsf directory listing

Unread post by Moonchild » 2022-12-15, 21:22

Yeah copyright assignment to the FSF and RMS is a big fat no-go.
"Sometimes, the best way to get what you want is to be a good person." -- Louis Rossmann
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb
"Linux makes everything difficult." -- Lyceus Anubite

User avatar
jobbautista9
Keeps coming back
Keeps coming back
Posts: 780
Joined: 2020-11-03, 06:47
Location: Philippines
Contact:

Re: Palemoon trademark policy and fsf directory listing

Unread post by jobbautista9 » 2022-12-16, 04:02

nparafe wrote:
2022-12-15, 12:38
FYI, FSF currently published Copyright assignment with the FSF . Maybe you can find some more info there.
I'm not sure what the FSF's copyright assignment has to do here, especially when the FSF only accepts copyright assignments from software that is part of the GNU Project, which Pale Moon is not...
Image

merry mimas

XUL add-ons developer. You can find a list of add-ons I manage at http://rw.rs/~job/software.html.

Mima avatar by 絵虎. Pixiv post: https://www.pixiv.net/en/artworks/15431817

Image

User avatar
Mæstro
Lunatic
Lunatic
Posts: 459
Joined: 2019-08-13, 00:30
Location: Casumia

Re: Palemoon trademark policy and fsf directory listing

Unread post by Mæstro » 2022-12-16, 23:07

That being able to sell something is part of whether something is ‘free’ in Stallman’s definition will always be hilarious to me. :lol:
Browser: Pale Moon (Pusser’s repository for Debian)
Operating System: Linux Mint Debian Edition 4 (amd64)
※Receiving Debian 10 LTS security upgrades
Hardware: HP Pavilion DV6-7010 (1400 MHz, 6 GB)
Formerly user TheRealMaestro: æsc is the best letter.

vannilla
Moon Magic practitioner
Moon Magic practitioner
Posts: 2181
Joined: 2018-05-05, 13:29

Re: Palemoon trademark policy and fsf directory listing

Unread post by vannilla » 2022-12-17, 00:37

TheRealMaestro wrote:
2022-12-16, 23:07
That being able to sell something is part of whether something is ‘free’ in Stallman’s definition will always be hilarious to me. :lol:
Off-topic:
As long as you allow your users to excercise their rights over the software they obtained from you, nothing stops you from selling your software.
Being free software does not mean uploading your source code to GitHub/Gitlab/other and let anyone grab at no cost, nor it means a "bazaar development"; it means that if a user asks for sources to modify their copy you give them without stopping those modifications. As such, if you provide the source only when someone requests it from you and charge money for the actual program, your software is still free since the license allows your users to apply changes and distribute those changes. (Of course there's more than just "modify the source", but when it comes to selling free software the debate always boils down to "how can you make money if the source can be downloaded freely????" and the answer is that you charge for the pre-compiled binary like every other paid software does. If people compile on their own it's economically equivalent to people pirating closed-source programs, except that the latter is illegal while the former is allowed by the copyright holders.)

User avatar
nparafe
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 6
Joined: 2022-11-29, 07:29
Contact:

Re: Palemoon trademark policy and fsf directory listing

Unread post by nparafe » 2022-12-18, 13:12

I'm not sure what the FSF's copyright assignment has to do here, especially when the FSF only accepts copyright assignments from software that is part of the GNU Project, which Pale Moon is not...
As English are not my mother tongue I thought that the following:
If someone from the FSF wants to reach out in private directly to discuss this with me, e.g. if they really feel they want Pale Moon and are willing to convince me to give up my property for the betterment of free software, they just need to shoot me an e-mail to moonchild@ our domain
meant that the Founder of Palemoon was willing to discuss that possibility.

Clearly this:
Yeah copyright assignment to the FSF and RMS is a big fat no-go.
shows that I was mistaken.

Although it is not the preferred choice, thanks to FSF and RMS and as Moonchild have already suggested, we have the ability to recompile this great browser, remove trademark and use it without any restrictions 😄

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 35402
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: Motala, SE
Contact:

Re: Palemoon trademark policy and fsf directory listing

Unread post by Moonchild » 2022-12-18, 13:31

nparafe wrote:
2022-12-18, 13:12
shows that I was mistaken.
No, it just shows that you don't understand how important my project is to me, nor that there is a pretty big difference between what i said and what you're suggesting.

I'm not just going to go through a form process to assign my copyright to the FSF. But I do keep discussion of cooperation open as a possibility if there is legal requirement for some form of rights assignment. Just the fact I'm willing to discuss something doesn't mean I'm just going to sign away my copyright on what has pretty much been my life's work to an organisation I have no real bond with at the moment.
"Sometimes, the best way to get what you want is to be a good person." -- Louis Rossmann
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb
"Linux makes everything difficult." -- Lyceus Anubite

User avatar
jobbautista9
Keeps coming back
Keeps coming back
Posts: 780
Joined: 2020-11-03, 06:47
Location: Philippines
Contact:

Re: Palemoon trademark policy and fsf directory listing

Unread post by jobbautista9 » 2022-12-18, 13:59

nparafe wrote:
2022-12-18, 13:12
I'm not sure what the FSF's copyright assignment has to do here, especially when the FSF only accepts copyright assignments from software that is part of the GNU Project, which Pale Moon is not...
As English are not my mother tongue I thought that the following:
If someone from the FSF wants to reach out in private directly to discuss this with me, e.g. if they really feel they want Pale Moon and are willing to convince me to give up my property for the betterment of free software, they just need to shoot me an e-mail to moonchild@ our domain
meant that the Founder of Palemoon was willing to discuss that possibility.
I read it as a possibility of Moonchild giving up on his trademarks, not copyrights, which is a very different thing. It's very unlikely anyway that a copyright assignment will happen, even if Moonchild wants it, because GNU already has its own browser called IceCat; what would Pale Moon as a whole add to their project? And again, the FSF will only accept copyright assignments if the code is part of a GNU package, and Pale Moon being a GNU package will just never happen.

From GNU Software Evaluation:
GNU Project wrote: GNU is not simply a collection of useful programs, but a unified operating system that is 100% free software. Thus, to keep the GNU system technically coherent, we make sure that the parts fit well together. So the evaluators judge programs based on how well they fit into the GNU system, both technically and philosophically, as well as on their quality, usability, and the other characteristics you would expect. Based on the evaluators' report, Richard Stallman (the Chief GNUisance) makes the final decision on whether to accept the contribution.

One consequence of this is that we generally do not accept new packages that substantially overlap with an existing GNU package. As a coherent system, it is better for GNU to have a given package to do a given job, and people in that area to contribute to and improve that package, working together, instead of having many packages that each do different parts of a job, each developed on its own. Similarly, a small program often fits better as part of an existing package than being a new package of its own. (GNU does have a number of such overlapping packages today, generally for historical reasons. This does not obviate the general principle.)
Image

merry mimas

XUL add-ons developer. You can find a list of add-ons I manage at http://rw.rs/~job/software.html.

Mima avatar by 絵虎. Pixiv post: https://www.pixiv.net/en/artworks/15431817

Image

User avatar
andyprough
Astronaut
Astronaut
Posts: 688
Joined: 2020-05-31, 04:33

Re: Palemoon trademark policy and fsf directory listing

Unread post by andyprough » 2022-12-18, 15:40

@nparafe and I have some friends that are high up in the FSF governing boards. We will reach out to one of them and mention that a general conversation with MC would be welcome at some point. Icecat is a nice project, but it is usually months or years out of date. The Trisquel GNU/Linux distro packages frequent updates of Firefox as "Abrowser" using the Icecat config options, so that is probably the main browser option that us free software zealots use. I've been talking up Pale Moon in some sort of a re-branded state (if proper permission were to be given by MC) as an alternative browser project, and there has been some interest.

I'm not trying to introduce a bunch of new back-and-forth on this thread, just letting MC know that @nparafe and I will discuss it with some people. It's the holidays and things move glacially slow in the free software world.

Good Tidings to all.

User avatar
nparafe
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 6
Joined: 2022-11-29, 07:29
Contact:

Re: Palemoon trademark policy and fsf directory listing

Unread post by nparafe » 2022-12-20, 08:47

Moonchild wrote:
2022-12-18, 13:31
No, it just shows that you don't understand how important my project is to me, nor that there is a pretty big difference between what i said and what you're suggesting.
I am really not suggesting that I do. The fact that you are the very heart and soul of this project cannot change whatever you choose to do with the trademark. This conversation have started simply as an inquiry about the project's stance towards software freedom and from my part to provide some information in the subject.
Off-topic:
andyprough wrote:
2022-12-18, 15:40
Icecat is a nice project, but it is usually months or years out of date.
Icecat is lately very consistent in following Firefox ESR releases, the only thing missing is a package repository.

User avatar
daemonspudguy
Fanatic
Fanatic
Posts: 121
Joined: 2020-04-22, 18:47
Location: Marietta, Ohio, USA, North America, Western Hemisphere, Earth, Milky Way, Universe, Multiverse
Contact:

Re: Palemoon trademark policy and fsf directory listing

Unread post by daemonspudguy » 2022-12-21, 20:03

Wait, is Pale Moon under the MPL 1 or 2? Because the MPL 2 contains an exception to the bundling with GPL restriction, unless you say otherwise of course.

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 35402
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: Motala, SE
Contact:

Re: Palemoon trademark policy and fsf directory listing

Unread post by Moonchild » 2022-12-22, 12:44

daemonspudguy wrote:
2022-12-21, 20:03
is Pale Moon under the MPL 1 or 2?
MPL 2
daemonspudguy wrote:
2022-12-21, 20:03
Because the MPL 2 contains an exception to the bundling with GPL restriction, unless you say otherwise of course.
that exception is bundling the complete browser with GPL software. It does not cover bundling GPL libraries as integral part of the browser. That is a restriction imposed by the GPL, not the MPL.
"Sometimes, the best way to get what you want is to be a good person." -- Louis Rossmann
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb
"Linux makes everything difficult." -- Lyceus Anubite

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 35402
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: Motala, SE
Contact:

Re: Palemoon trademark policy and fsf directory listing

Unread post by Moonchild » 2022-12-22, 12:53

nparafe wrote:
2022-12-20, 08:47
The fact that you are the very heart and soul of this project cannot change whatever you choose to do with the trademark.
I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here. I just responded to your conclusion that things cannot be discussed with me because I will just not sign over copyright of my work to the FSF.
Maybe go back and read you own post.

Aside from that I think I made my position very clear, and others have further clarified the trademark and licensing issues at hand here.
"Sometimes, the best way to get what you want is to be a good person." -- Louis Rossmann
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb
"Linux makes everything difficult." -- Lyceus Anubite

User avatar
nparafe
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 6
Joined: 2022-11-29, 07:29
Contact:

Re: Palemoon trademark policy and fsf directory listing

Unread post by nparafe » 2022-12-23, 10:44

Moonchild wrote:
2022-12-22, 12:53
I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here. I just responded to your conclusion that things cannot be discussed with me because I will just not sign over copyright of my work to the FSF.
Maybe go back and read you own post.
I just wanted to underline that a project isn't worth anything without it's developers and community. Trademarks and copyrights on the other hand, do not add real value to anything. They just restrict it if they are not free.

Anyway as I said, it was a good and productive conversation.

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 35402
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: Motala, SE
Contact:

Re: Palemoon trademark policy and fsf directory listing

Unread post by Moonchild » 2022-12-23, 15:09

nparafe wrote:
2022-12-23, 10:44
Trademarks and copyrights on the other hand, do not add real value to anything.
You're absolutely incorrect there. That's not an opinion either but a fact.
A brand and trademark is, above all, a distinguishing mark that a piece of software adheres to the vision, direction and quality of the one publishing it. As such, it has at least a quality and support value, if not being a mark of integrity and "getting what you expect to get" from something. That is a significant value, and is inextricably bound to the developers and community driving it.

But I won't be spending my Christmas trying to explain it further.

Instead I will leave you with a bit about packaging and trademark from GNU itself to think about, that was brought up when we were giving resistance to the way Pale Moon was being built in the BSD corner not adhering to the way it was intended or envisioned by us:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html wrote:Rules about how to package a modified version are acceptable, if they don't substantively limit your freedom to release modified versions, or your freedom to make and use modified versions privately. Thus, it is acceptable for the license to require that you change the name of the modified version, remove a logo, or identify your modifications as yours. As long as these requirements are not so burdensome that they effectively hamper you from releasing your changes, they are acceptable; you're already making other changes to the program, so you won't have trouble making a few more.
Example: Would Ubuntu have been the same without its distinguishing name and marks? Would it have become as important if it was just called "Debian Community" or something even more generic? I don't think so.

I don't have anything else to add.
"Sometimes, the best way to get what you want is to be a good person." -- Louis Rossmann
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb
"Linux makes everything difficult." -- Lyceus Anubite

User avatar
nparafe
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 6
Joined: 2022-11-29, 07:29
Contact:

Re: Palemoon trademark policy and fsf directory listing

Unread post by nparafe » 2023-01-04, 13:17

I am really sorry that you do not have the time, the interest or both in responding to this thread but I feel compelled to reply in a post that was directly addressed to me. I do not want to force anyone to respond. I am just making my thoughts public for everyone else.

1. Concerning quality
Moonchild wrote:
2022-12-23, 15:09

You're absolutely incorrect there. That's not an opinion either but a fact.
A brand and trademark is, above all, a distinguishing mark that a piece of software adheres to the vision, direction and quality of the one publishing it. As such, it has at least a quality and support value, if not being a mark of integrity and "getting what you expect to get" from something. That is a significant value, and is inextricably bound to the developers and community driving it.
As a quality consultant with years of experience with an MSc in quality management I can argue that product quality and branding has nothing to do with each other. But this is not the case here. I choose free over a non-free software not based on quality but based on freedom. In the modern world we have given up many of our rights so we can use "better products".

2. Concerning What is Free Software
Moonchild wrote:
2022-12-23, 15:09
Instead I will leave you with a bit about packaging and trademark from GNU itself to think about, that was brought up when we were giving resistance to the way Pale Moon was being built in the BSD corner not adhering to the way it was intended or envisioned by us:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html wrote:Rules about how to package a modified version are acceptable, if they don't substantively limit your freedom to release modified versions, or your freedom to make and use modified versions privately. Thus, it is acceptable for the license to require that you change the name of the modified version, remove a logo, or identify your modifications as yours. As long as these requirements are not so burdensome that they effectively hamper you from releasing your changes, they are acceptable; you're already making other changes to the program, so you won't have trouble making a few more.
This document was what I had in mind when I made this post in the first place. Literally a few sentences above in the same document:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html wrote: ... to exclude commercial use, commercial development or commercial distribution would hobble the free software community and obstruct its path to success. We must conclude that a program licensed with such restrictions does not qualify as free software.
3. Concerning trademark
Moonchild wrote:
2022-12-23, 15:09
Example: Would Ubuntu have been the same without its distinguishing name and marks? Would it have become as important if it was just called "Debian Community" or something even more generic? I don't think so.
Although it wasn't the best company in the world in the past either, now that Twitter. changed owner and fired 50% of its employees, is it the same company just because it has the same name and marks?

User avatar
jobbautista9
Keeps coming back
Keeps coming back
Posts: 780
Joined: 2020-11-03, 06:47
Location: Philippines
Contact:

Re: Palemoon trademark policy and fsf directory listing

Unread post by jobbautista9 » 2023-01-04, 14:19

nparafe wrote:
2023-01-04, 13:17
Literally a few sentences above in the same document:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html wrote: ... to exclude commercial use, commercial development or commercial distribution would hobble the free software community and obstruct its path to success. We must conclude that a program licensed with such restrictions does not qualify as free software.
You can still sell the browser. You aren't just allowed to call the browser you sell as "Pale Moon". Now if the FSF thinks that a software's protection of its availability from being misrepresented makes it unfree, that's their choice. But I wholeheartedly disagree that this no longer makes it free software, and it's stupid that they're including trademark restrictions into consideration of what should be free software, despite their objections to copyrights, patents, and trademarks being lumped together into "intellectual property" even though, they argue, they're really different laws. Copyright should be the only consideration on what should be considered free software.

This makes it even more confusing when you consider that the FSF thinks Firefox is not free software, but take away the branding, and suddenly it's free? Like what difference does it really make to the user in terms of freedom whether they get an "official build" from Mozilla or not? This is pettiness to the highest level.

So I think this is a perfectly fine restriction and doesn't really infringe on any important freedoms. And btw, it's not only the FSF defining free software. I'm pretty sure Pale Moon will perfectly fit within Debian's Free Software Guidelines.
nparafe wrote:
2023-01-04, 13:17
Although it wasn't the best company in the world in the past either, now that Twitter. changed owner and fired 50% of its employees, is it the same company just because it has the same name and marks?
I think the point Moonchild was making is, would Twitter be the largest microblogging site it is today if it decided to name itself to something like "Facebook Tiny" or "Blogger Micro" when it was founded?
Image

merry mimas

XUL add-ons developer. You can find a list of add-ons I manage at http://rw.rs/~job/software.html.

Mima avatar by 絵虎. Pixiv post: https://www.pixiv.net/en/artworks/15431817

Image

User avatar
moonbat
Knows the dark side
Knows the dark side
Posts: 4942
Joined: 2015-12-09, 15:45
Contact:

Re: Palemoon trademark policy and fsf directory listing

Unread post by moonbat » 2023-01-07, 08:51

nparafe wrote:
2023-01-04, 13:17
As a quality consultant with years of experience with an MSc in quality management I can argue that product quality and branding has nothing to do with each other.
Your being a quality expert has clearly blinded you to the importance of branding. Without a brand name the world isn't going to beat a path to the door of your unknown product. And branding otherwise is tied to the reputation of the entity in question - whether it is a century old Fortune 500 worth billions (think Coca Cola) or an independent web browser that has built a certain reputation for itself over the close to 15 years of its existence.

Not protecting one's brand from impersonation or misrepresentation only harms the users of the product in question - which is why Coca Cola goes after counterfeit local bottlers using their logo and styling - and which is why MC forbids using the Pale Moon logo for unauthorized third party builds using different libraries or compilers. In the latter case, he cannot guarantee the quality of a build he didn't make or authorize - which is being distributed to users as Pale Moon and making him liable for any problems that the users face.
"One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them and in the darkness BIND them."

Image
Linux Mint 21 Xfce x64 on HP i5-5200 laptop, 12 GB RAM.
AutoPageColor|PermissionsPlus|PMPlayer|Pure URL|RecordRewind|TextFX

Locked