| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
What are you trying to say exactly?What are you trying to say exactly?Posted May 14, 2003 20:39 UTC (Wed) by roskegg (subscriber, #105)In reply to: Another name for "apathetic" that tells the true story by proski Parent article: Christopher Blizzard of mozilla.org Speaks on the Firebird Naming Conflict (MozillaZine) Please be explicit; I didn't understand what you were trying to say, or how it related to the topic under discussion. If the Mozilla team want to look like "good guys" the only way they can do that is by changing the Firebird name, and publicly apologizing to the Firebird project. Talking to their lawyers and ignoring the complaints of a project of 3 years standing is more than a faux pas; it is arrogance of a type rarely equalled in the Free Software community. I am not surprised Apple chose to work with the Konqueror team instead of the Mozilla team.
(Log in to post comments)
What I'm trying to say is ... Posted May 14, 2003 21:31 UTC (Wed) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] that Christopher Blizzard sounds like a honest person to me, that he acknowledges the problem on the Mozilla side and tries to do best to mitigate the situation. I disagree with your description of his position as "mealy mouthed weasel words". I also don't see any arrogance, extreme or otherwise, in his words.On the other hand, I hope that AOL and the Mozilla team will learn from this incident and stick with their promise not to use the name "Firebird" on ready software products. As for the apology, I don't feel strong about it. It's up to Mozilla developers to decide. But for the sake of ending this conflict, it's better not to demand the apology from them. I never liked the name "Firebird" for the browser ("Kiwi" was my favorite), but renaming the project one more time would be impractical, in my opinion.
Mr Blizzards only honesty Posted May 14, 2003 21:35 UTC (Wed) by roskegg (subscriber, #105) [Link] The only honesty that Mr. Blizzard showed in the interview was showing his, and the Mozilla projects, arrogance. I don't believe you have the knowledge to evaluate his interview beyond that. You lack the prior history need to put it in context.
Mr Blizzards only honesty Posted May 15, 2003 2:38 UTC (Thu) by erikharrison (guest, #11204) [Link] That's cool. We lack the context. Provide would you?First you add invective to to a dispute which until recently you have helped to calm down. Next you claim that this invective spurs from an attitude you see in the Mozilla project - an arrogance so great that you would not recommend the Mozilla product were there a clear alternative. Now, I don't recommend products if they are technically incapable (which does not seem to be your stance with Mozilla) or if there is some legitimate harm in using the product (Microsoft licencing is damaging to the consumer). So the Mozilla arrogance must be huge to deserve such treatment. Then you go from claiming that the interview is a clear example of that arrogance, to saying that it is only clear in the context of your five year experience with the project and its predecessor. While that seems a little weak, it would be legitimate if you gave any of that background. You do not. In short, you say "Mozilla is a product which should not be used, because I don't like some of those guys, for reasons I won't explain." Frankly, this seems beneath you, as you have clearly demonstrated your capacity to be politic, calm, and lucid in your behavior up till now, and you technical knowledge is certainly not in question. This is an issue that will be resolved by everybody taking a step back, and not from ringside crowd jeering, and even indirect claims about project leaders integrity.
Mr Blizzards only honesty Posted May 15, 2003 5:40 UTC (Thu) by Sharky (guest, #11210) [Link] Mr. Jonathan Walther, beware: A link to this article was placed on the front page of Mozillazine. Expect a flow of Mozilla sympathizers to follow suit.
What are you trying to say exactly? Posted May 14, 2003 22:05 UTC (Wed) by gerv (subscriber, #3376) [Link] Talking to their lawyers and ignoring the complaints of a project of 3 years standing is more than a faux pas; it is arrogance of a type rarely equalled in the Free Software community. It seems clear to me, Jonathan, that your offer to mediate impartially was a trojan horse. You seem anything but disinterested. The above statement is false; mozilla.org did not, and is not, ignoring the complaints of FirebirdSQL. We are doing our best to accommodate their concerns and worries. However, that does not extend to delaying the release of the Mozilla Firebird Browser 0.6 another two months while we run another name through the lawyers who cleared the current one. I am not surprised Apple chose to work with the Konqueror team instead of the Mozilla team. That statement shows a quite impressive ignorance of reality. Apple's stated reasons for choosing to base Safari on Konqueror rather than Mozilla were technical ones (and mozilla.org has things to learn from that); and they did the entire development in a closed-source fashion until they went public. There was no choice to "work with the Konqueror team rather than the Mozilla team." If personalities came into it, then perhaps maybe Dave Hyatt, Mozilla developer and Safari designer, might have chosen to work with his friends who he'd been working with for the past four years when employed by Netscape. Gerv (gerv@mozilla.org)
Perfect example of Mozilla dishonesty and arrogance Posted May 14, 2003 23:54 UTC (Wed) by roskegg (subscriber, #105) [Link] Comments like this from the Mozilla developers perfectly illustrate the arrogance and immaturity I have come to associate with them. It seems clear to me, Jonathan, that your offer to mediate impartially was a trojan horse. You seem anything but disinterested. If I had no interest in the conflict, why would I have gotten involved in the first place? I was always very open and honest about my motives, and my bias. The fact that I am a daily user of Mozilla, and use Firebirds competitor Postgres, show that my biases are on the side of Mozilla. To call my efforts a "Trojan Horse" means nothing in real terms, but sure sounds gosh-darn sneaky and malicious. If you had something real to accuse me of, you would have. That you stoop to such slurs is another example of the dishonesty that is rampant among the Mozilla team. You never addressed the FACT that Asa handed down the naming decision as from on high, and had run it by the lawyers first without even talking to the Firebird team. And when they did complain, told them "We aren't changing, suck it up". This is the height of immaturity and arrogance. Insinuating things about my integrity doesn't change these FACTS. In the interests of smoothing things out and getting the problem resolved, I went to bat for the Mozilla team. I stayed silent and didn't correct the various news reporters that interviewed me when they showed they had the impression that Mr. Blizzards "Branding Statement" was just clearing up a big misunderstanding. There was NO misunderstanding; I and the Firebird team were just allowing you to save face in the hopes that you would start to play ball. But then Christopher Blizzards posts SHIT like the interview linked in this article, it becomes obvious that there is no desire of many on the Mozilla team to play ball. You think just because you are a big oil tanker in the Free Software movement, you can run over Firebirds little Free Software yacht, and experience no consequences. I am sorry, but the whole point of Free Software is that people are responsible for their actions, and sincerely want to put their morals and ethics into action. Mozilla has so far not done this. The above statement is false; mozilla.org did not, and is not, ignoring the complaints of FirebirdSQL. We are doing our best to accommodate their concerns and worries. However, that does not extend to delaying the release of the Mozilla Firebird Browser 0.6 another two months while we run another name through the lawyers who cleared the current one. It doesn't take two months to run "Mozilla Browser" through your lawyers; it is already cleared and trademarked in your name. Yet again you assault my integrity with dishonest statements. At the time I became involved, Mozilla HAD been ignoring the Firebird projects complaints. The fact that there is some dialog happening now is in some small measure because of the efforts of Ann Harrison, myself, and the rest of the Firebird team to play nice with some people who gave, and continue to give, every evidence that they think it is alright to behave like bullies. That statement shows a quite impressive ignorance of reality. Apple's stated reasons for choosing to base Safari on Konqueror rather than Mozilla were technical ones (and mozilla.org has things to learn from that); and they did the entire development in a closed-source fashion until they went public. There was no choice to "work with the Konqueror team rather than the Mozilla team." If personalities came into it, then perhaps maybe Dave Hyatt, Mozilla developer and Safari designer, might have chosen to work with his friends who he'd been working with for the past four years when employed by Netscape. Let us stop with these "maybes" and suppositions. If your former "friend" doesn't even want to work with you on such a project, that should be a wakeup call. Due to politics, no public company like Apple is going to come out and say "we chose this piece of technology because the alternative was working with a bunch of assholes". So the fact that it wasn't SAID publicly neither indicates nor implies that that wasn't the reason. Please, no more dishonesty. You boys on the Mozilla team really need to wake up and look at yourselves in the mirror. The only way you can regain credibility in the Free Software community is to be honest and say "We fucked up, we are sorry, here is what we plan to do to make sure it doesn't happen again". Jonathan Walther
Perfect example of Mozilla dishonesty and arrogance Posted May 15, 2003 1:02 UTC (Thu) by tjc (guest, #137) [Link] Please, no more dishonesty.Please, no more profanity. It's in bad taste, and it's really out of place at a place like LWN. This isn't /. you know! ;-) At least stop appending "Debian Developer" to your messages if you're going to persist.
Perfect example of Mozilla dishonesty and arrogance Posted May 15, 2003 1:26 UTC (Thu) by mlx (guest, #11202) [Link] "It doesn't take two months to run "Mozilla Browser" through your lawyers"no, but that name is taken by the current Mozilla browser. The previous name was also someone else's trademark... so it would have meant yet another name (and another 2 months). "Let us stop with these "maybes" and suppositions." Good idea. "If your former "friend" doesn't even want to work with you on such a project, that should be a wakeup call." So "ifs" and suppositions are ok for you? Dave Hyatt isn't their 'former "friend"', he is still a friend and is still working on the Mozilla project. Apple's decision, as Gerv said, was not based on personalities but on technicalities. Accusing people of immaturity, dishonesty, arrogance, talking s*** and f***ing up generally isn't a good way to mediate a dispute. I would say it is you that needs to look in the mirror, and hopefully you will see your own immaturity, dishonesty, arrogance and recognise that it's not only mozilla.org that f***ed up here. You might also notice that Firebird SQL, yourself and Debian are being damaged by this as well as Mozilla.
Weird example of Mozilla incompetence, then? Posted May 27, 2003 7:46 UTC (Tue) by CRConrad (guest, #11471) [Link] "mlx"[quoting someone else:]So you guys have never heard of version numbers?It doesn't take two months to run "Mozilla Browser" through your lawyers[replies:] no, but that name is taken by the current Mozilla browser.
BEWARE Posted May 15, 2003 5:49 UTC (Thu) by Sharky (guest, #11210) [Link] Mr. Jonathan Walther, beware: A link to this article was placed on the front page of Mozillazine. Expect a flow of Mozilla sympathizers to follow suit.
Perfect example of Mozilla dishonesty and arrogance Posted May 15, 2003 6:11 UTC (Thu) by jesup (guest, #11208) [Link] NOTE: I'm responding as an individual, not in any official Mozilla role, and in fact I missed many of the discussions when all this started since I was busy on a work project. It's late and I hope I don't repeat myself too much...I'll probably regret saying anything at all in the morning.Being very careful not to be tempted into flaming:
To call my efforts a "Trojan Horse" means nothing in real terms, but sure sounds gosh-darn sneaky and malicious. If you had something real to accuse me of, you would have. That you stoop to such slurs is another example of the dishonesty that is rampant among the Mozilla team. The Mozilla staff (& drivers) are not being 'dishonest' in this. While I was not directly involved in any of these issues (I was busy with other paying work at the time), I am quite sure I've seen no one being dishonest on the Mozilla staff. I've seen some hyperbole and flaming just as you're using hyperbole and flaming here, but most of the mozilla staff have kept that to themselves, and not made public attacks on anyone. Most private grousing was in response to being mailbombed and nastygrams, and in the presumption that somehow we were either out to get smaller projects, or didn't care about hurting them. On the contrary, I've seen a lot of Mozilla people trying to find a resolution that would work. Blizzard's interview, if you don't read it looking for something to pounce on, is another instance of attempting to clear the air and calm things down. I personally guarantee you no one wanted to step on the Firebird database or it's google ranking. (This does bring up an interesting aside: it appears what incensed some people more than any trademark or possible user confusion was the possible loss of "I'm feeling lucky" ranking on google.) I personally had never heard of the firebird database before all this; and "firebird" is generic enough that I never would have thought I needed to check except for browsers. (As I said, I didn't take part in the decision.) But I do know that the motives and emotions (and internal conversations) ascribed here by you to the Mozilla team are not correct. You may choose to call me dishonest too if you wish, but doing so will not change any facts. I can also tell you that the Mozilla team was not ignoring the complaints by the firebird database team. I know that after the mailbombing (which happened before anyone had a chance to reply or agree on a response I believe) some were tempted to do so, but they did not do so. That doesn't mean we jumped to a resolution or a response; there were lots of private discussions, and part of those were (I'm sure) to double-check our legal status before responding, so response may have been delayed. Yes, things happen more slowly than some on both sides might like. Blizzard's "Branding" document lays out a path to get out of this and let us both get back to using our time to develop our products instead of infighting. Honestly we had been using and wanted to continue using "Phoenix", but that wasn't possible legally. This left us in a tough spot, which we thought we could reduce by sticking to a name close to "phoenix". Turned out we were wrong, and that's unfortunate. If your former "friend" doesn't even want to work with you on such a project, that should be a wakeup call. He was hired away by Apple to have a very nice position doing fun stuff. He still contributes to Mozilla regularly.
Are the people who work on Mozilla perfect? Of course not. They're heavily over-burdened developers and staff (like most large open-source projects) fighting against an MS product with such high penetration that MS can pretty much ignore or force the standards and we have to suck it up and find ways to be compatible. Yes, in 20/20 hindsight it was a mistake to choose the name (though not legally wrong), and I personally regret that, even though I didn't take part in it. There was no malice of any type, nor do I think anyone thought there would be any problems with the name (boy was that wrong!). Knowing the Mozilla people, I do believe that a more measured and less hysterical (and less hyperbolic) approach from the start would have gotten at least more sympathetic responses, and perhaps faster action. This is hardly the first time open-source projects have name-collided - we in fact got blindsided ourselves by the Phoenix bit. None of the Mozilla team are acting like bullies in my opinion; I think many Mozilla people thought that there would be no problem with the names co-existing (once they heard of Firebird SQL), as many other projects have done, and so were surprised at the vehemence of the reaction. Again, I wonder how much the Googlization of the Internet affected the level of emotion in the response - it's interesting from a cultural anthropology point-of-view. There were lots of flamebait retorts and flames I could have used in writing this. I tried hard to stay away from them, because that's not what we need. Flaming and ad hominem statements are cathartic, but they're a very poor way to influence people or promote discussion, and in fact often has the exact opposite effect, causing all parties to dig in their heels.
Perfect example of Mozilla dishonesty and arrogance Posted May 15, 2003 7:00 UTC (Thu) by msutherland (guest, #11201) [Link] > The Mozilla staff (& drivers) are not being 'dishonest' in this.Sure they are. Are you telling me that you buy this line of bullshit? "Oh wait! Firebird is meant as the *project* name for the former Phoenix. Mozilla Browser will be the *product* name. Sorry for the confusion, but we needed to have some name for Mozilla Browser in Bugzilla. And the naming of Firebird in the Mozillazine forums, FireBird(TM).... well, that's just a typo. We never said this before because we thought it was obvious when we first announced the name Firebird, after 6+ months of everyone waiting, that Mozilla Browser would be the true name." Give me a break.
The sorry group of clowns that run Mozilla.org have only one thing to blame for that... themselves. They started at a time when Netscape enjoyed significant marketshare and had support of the mighty MS foe, AOL, only to screw themselves left and right by becoming obsessed with cross-platform idealogy and ultra-adherence to the W3C in lieu of everything else. As a result, after over 5 years... Mozilla.org spits out what will forever be known as the Blob of the Millenium... Mozilla 1.0. Unsurprisingly, less than a year after the Mozilla 1.0 atrocity, some genius nitwits finally figure out that something isn't quite right with the hellish monstrosity that is Mozilla... with the latest hopes of salvations being on the thing called Phoenix. Mozilla.org fucked themselves. They fucked themselves by becoming so tied up and obsessed with their ideals that in the end... they became irrelevant.
Perfect example of Mozilla dishonesty and arrogance Posted May 15, 2003 13:58 UTC (Thu) by asacarny (guest, #11228) [Link] "Oh wait! Firebird is meant as the *project* name for the former Phoenix. Mozilla Browser will be the *product* name. Sorry for the confusion, but we needed to have some name for Mozilla Browser in Bugzilla. And the naming of Firebird in the Mozillazine forums, FireBird(TM).... well, that's just a typo. We never said this before because we thought it was obvious when we first announced the name Firebird, after 6+ months of everyone waiting, that Mozilla Browser would be the true name."I have been following the Mozilla project for some time. In its earlier stages, webpages and "fan" sites used the name SeaMonkey quite often. As the project has progressed, we now usually see people calling it Mozilla with SeaMonkey mentioned only rarely. I see no reason why the Firebird name should not experience the same fate. The roadmap outlines changes in Mozilla under the hood, and not ones that should confuse the user. As a result, the names for each component in Mozilla's next major production release must be comparable to those of the previous release. Using the names "Mozilla Thunderbird" or "Mozilla Firebird" would not make sense to a user who usually clicks the "Mozilla" icon to start his or her browser. Is it just me, or is all of this common sense? It doesn't take a roadmap for me to realize that product names can't go changing with every upgrade. Adam
Perfect example of Mozilla dishonesty and arrogance Posted May 15, 2003 7:19 UTC (Thu) by djst (guest, #11214) [Link] There was NO misunderstanding; I and the Firebird team were just allowing you to save face in the hopes that you would start to play ball. But then Christopher Blizzards posts SHIT like the interview linked in this article, it becomes obvious that there is no desire of many on the Mozilla team to play ball. You couldn't be more wrong. The plan ever since the name needed to change has always been to use Mozilla Browser in the end, and I can prove it by quoting an email from Asa Dotzler dated 2003-03-28, explaining the new names before they went public: "Phoenix -> Firebird, and Minotaur -> Thunderbird. But the real news (that I hinted about below) which makes the names unimportant is that we're working on having them simply be called "Mozilla Browser" and "Mozilla Mail". The plan (and please, please, don't pass this on to anyone) is to make Phoenix and Minotaur the official builds from mozilla.org and make the old suite the secondary project (like phoenix is now). We'll need "project names" or "code names" to keep the bugs separate in Bugzilla, etc. so I suspect that we'll call them Firebird and Thunderbird where ever that makes sense but to most of the world, I suspect that they'll just think of Firebird as "the broser from Mozilla". It's all still in flux and may change dramatically (may not happen at all) but that's what we're working on making happen." So you're the one who is posting "SHIT", as you would express it.
Perfect example of Mozilla dishonesty and arrogance Posted May 15, 2003 7:40 UTC (Thu) by msutherland (guest, #11201) [Link] > You couldn't be more wrong. The plan ever since the name needed to change has always been to use Mozilla Browser in the endMr. David Tenser... you are full of it, sir. That is a pure line of complete and utter bullshit and you know it. I'm ashamed, but not surprised, with your behavior. I know the Firebird Help site is an important pet project for you to play with but lets get with the program of honesty here.
Perfect example of Mozilla dishonesty and arrogance Posted May 15, 2003 9:00 UTC (Thu) by djst (guest, #11214) [Link] I'm lost of words. How can you simply assume that I'm not telling the truth when I'm trying to do exactly that? Why would I lie about this? I'm posting proof that Jonathan Walther is wrong when he makes claims about a change of plans at mozilla.org and now you're accusing me of being a liar?As soon as I get home again (I'm currently at the university), I'll upload the full email source and post a link here. Your attitude scares me. Where is the trust in people nowadays? If anything, you should be ashamed.
Perfect example of Mozilla dishonesty and arrogance Posted May 15, 2003 9:41 UTC (Thu) by msutherland (guest, #11201) [Link] > I'm lost of words.You should be. In response to this question from Thelem at Mozillazine on April 15th, 2003: Subject: Product Names "As these are just product names, they will presumably be fully refered to as 'Mozilla Firebird' and 'Mozilla Thunderbird', just as you would 'Microsoft Internet Explorer'?" http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=3075&message=44&state=reply
"Yes. We have the Mozilla Firebird browser and the Mozilla Thunderbird email client. --Asa" http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=3075&message=54#54
The point is that when the new name for Phoenix was announced, Firebird, it had not then been the consensus for 'Mozilla Browser' as the real name... like those clowns at Mozilla.org are saying. They just came out later and said 'Yeah, that's what we meant all along... Firebird is just the project name for bugzilla'. That, of course, is pure bullshit... and you'll be hard pressed to find anyone outside of the Mozilla community who would swallow it.
Me ashamed? You should be ashamed for thinking I would fall for such a flawed 'save face' effort.
http://texturizer.net/firebird/ http://texturizer.net/thunderbird/ Is there a little 'political correctness' going on there?
Perfect example of Mozilla dishonesty and arrogance Posted May 15, 2003 11:31 UTC (Thu) by djst (guest, #11214) [Link] The point is that when the new name for Phoenix was announced, Firebird, it had not then been the consensus for 'Mozilla Browser' as the real name... like those clowns at Mozilla.org are saying. I'm not saying that the announcement by Mozilla.org was made the best possible way (in fact I think they should have been more clear about the naming policy from the very beginning), I'm just saying that the plan is and has always been to call the browser Mozilla Browser. Period. Yet you keep accusing me for being a liar. You should be ashamed for thinking I would fall for such a flawed 'save face' effort. What I'm telling you is the truth and I will prove it. BTW, why do you refer to the browser as Mozilla Firebird and the mail as just Thunderbird? My sites are in no way official, but of course I'll rename the Thunderbird site too. It just hasn't been the #1 priority for me lately. They will both be renamed again when Mozilla (Application Suite) 1.4 is released.
Perfect example of Mozilla dishonesty and arrogance Posted May 15, 2003 12:17 UTC (Thu) by msutherland (guest, #11201) [Link] > I'm not saying that the announcement by Mozilla.org was made the best possible way (in fact I think they should have been more clear about the naming policy from the very beginning), I'm just saying that the plan is and has always been to call the browser Mozilla Browser. Period.You are missing the mark entirely. I don't care that the name Mozilla Browser was "all still in flux and may change dramatically (may not happen at all)". The POINT is that if Mozilla Browser was really the product name when the announcement was made on April 14th, 2003... like the lousy liars at Mozilla.org claim... then the headline for such a long-time anticipated announcement would not be: "After months of discussion and further months of legal investigation, we're finally comfortable moving forward with new names. The new name for the Phoenix browser is 'Firebird'. The documentation and product strings will be updated soon. In addition to securing Firebird, we've also got the OK from those contributing legal resources to use the name 'Thunderbird' for a mail client. Hopefully this will be the end of naming legal issues for a while." Do you understand that? Or are you so completely biased that you can't see the forest through the trees? Use your head for crying out loud. I would believe you if the new name announcement on April 14th said something along the lines of this: "The new name for the Phoenix browser is Mozilla Browser, code named 'Firebird'. The new name for the mail client is Mozilla Mail, code named 'Thunderbird'." or... "The new name for the Phoenix browser is Mozilla Browser, with the project name in bugzilla being 'Firebird'. The new name for the mail client is Mozilla Mail, with the project name in Bugzilla being 'Thunderbird'."
So when Mozilla.org tries to desperately save face and say that is what they meant... sorry boys, but that canoe is going down the river without a paddle. > Yet you keep accusing me for being a liar. I didn't say you were a liar. I said you were full of it and that the line your were trying to sell me was bullshit. As far as liars go... the clowns at Mozilla.org are the liars.
Perfect example of Mozilla dishonesty and arrogance Posted May 15, 2003 14:06 UTC (Thu) by djst (guest, #11214) [Link] I wrote: The plan ever since the name needed to change has always been to use Mozilla Browser in the endYou replied: Mr. David Tenser... you are full of it, sir. That is a pure line of complete and utter bullshit and you know it. How can I miss that mark you're trying to make? You're trying to suggest that I'm not telling the truth, which I am. The plan _has_ been to call it Mozilla Browser, and I already _did_ agree with you that the announcement wasn't the best. Use _your_ head instead of being impolite to people you don't know.
Perfect example of Mozilla dishonesty and arrogance Posted May 15, 2003 15:12 UTC (Thu) by msutherland (guest, #11201) [Link] > You're trying to suggest that I'm not telling the truth, which I am.No. No. No. When I said... 'Mr. David Tenser... you are full of it, sir. That is a pure line of complete and utter bullshit and you know it.'... I meant that what your you were trying to get at with that email was bullshit. I did not mean that I did not believe you got the email... I meant the point your were trying to make with it was bullshit. And it is... bullshit.
"The plan ever since the name needed to change has always been to use Mozilla Browser in the end" I would call that a lie. Unless, of course, you are merely echoing what someone else told you... in that case, then they'd be lying. > The plan _has_ been to call it Mozilla Browser, and I already _did_ agree with you that the announcement wasn't the best. You're missing the mark again. You're trying to put it off as though the announcement itself was at fault... a giant typographical error, so to speak. It wasn't. The announcement accurately reflected the state of reality regarding the naming of Phoenix. The gross lies come in when Mozilla.org later claims that when the Firebird name was announced on April 14th.... it was meant as the project name only, with Mozilla Browser being the real name. That is pure bullshit. A despicable lie ponied up in an effort to save their sorry faces.
Perfect example of Mozilla dishonesty and arrogance Posted May 15, 2003 9:19 UTC (Thu) by gerv (subscriber, #3376) [Link] Mr. David Tenser... you are full of it, sir. That is a pure line of complete and utter bullshit and you know it. I'd like to know your basis for that assertion. David has supported his by quoting a mail pre-dating the conflict which shows where we wanted to move to (and are still moving to.) The position then remains the position today - "Mozilla Browser" is where we want to be. Gerv
Mozilla.org == Sorry Bunch of Lying Bastards! Posted May 18, 2003 12:19 UTC (Sun) by msutherland (guest, #11201) [Link] Trademark registration is not required for trademark validity. Use in trade is sufficient. Trademark registration, by itself, doesn't establish the validity of a mark, but it does move the question into Federal courts.Firebird is in the process of registering the mark "Firebird". The Mozilla group will have opportunity to explain to the US Patent Office their various quaint and creative reasons what Firebird isn't a valid trademark for a database but is for a browser. Then the venue will shift to Federal court. The issues aren't subtle or difficult to master. Firebird has been using the trademark uncontested for three years. They're really nothing left to be said but determine damages. To further add to my complete disprespect of the Mozilla community.... 1. Mozillazine taking the Firebird name and appending a (TM) to it in their forums. In their flawed arrogance, they thought they were being cute. I look at as them acting like a bunch of backward ass nitwit twirps. Lucky for them they recently became endowed with the brains to remove it. 2. In a failed effort to save their sorry faces, they later claim that when they announced their name change from Phoenix to Firebird that they had meant at that time, and all along, that the Firebird was just the 'project' name... and that the 'product' name was Mozilla Browser. That, of course, is load of vile bullshit for several reasons..... Here's the announcement: "Asa Dotzler writes: After months of discussion and further months of legal investigation, we're finally comfortable moving forward with new names. The new name for the Phoenix browser is 'Firebird'. The documentation and product strings will be updated soon. In addition to securing Firebird, we've also got the OK from those contributing legal resources to use the name 'Thunderbird' for a mail client. Hopefully this will be the end of naming legal issues for a while." http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=3075 A. There is absolutely no mention, not even a remote hint, that the name Firbird is simply a project name. In fact, the supposed 'product' name, Mozilla Browser, as you can see, is not even cited. B. If Firebird was meant as a 'project' name... then there is no requirement to 'run it through legal' C. Asa Dotzler was even specifically asked what the *product* name would be by a community member: "SUBJECT: Product Names http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=3075&message=44&state=reply Asa's reply.... "SUBJECT: Re: Product Names --Asa" http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=3075&message=54&state=reply
Perfect example of Mozilla dishonesty and arrogance Posted May 15, 2003 9:14 UTC (Thu) by gerv (subscriber, #3376) [Link] If I had no interest in the conflict, why would I have gotten involved in the first place? You are confusing "disinterested" with "uninterested". "Disinterested" means being impartial. "Uninterested" means not having an interest. To call my efforts a "Trojan Horse" means nothing in real terms, but sure sounds gosh-darn sneaky and malicious. If you had something real to accuse me of, you would have. That you stoop to such slurs is another example of the dishonesty that is rampant among the Mozilla team. The Trojans conquered Troy by wheeling a horse up to the gates, ostensibly as an innocent offering to their gods. In fact, it turned out to be anything but innocent. I am likening your behaviour, in offering to impartially mediate whilst actually holding very one-sided views, to that approach. You think just because you are a big oil tanker in the Free Software movement, you can run over Firebirds little Free Software yacht, and experience no consequences. I am sorry, but the whole point of Free Software is that people are responsible for their actions, and sincerely want to put their morals and ethics into action. When someone starts a sentence with "the whole point of Free Software is", and then makes an assertion supporting their position in a debate, I immediately think of Slashdot. Any assertion that mozilla.org picked the name Firebird with any malicious intent is quite simply false. We spent several months delaying the next release of Phoenix/Mozilla Firebird while waiting for the name to be cleared. (Phoenix 0.5 was released in December last year.) Once we finally had a cleared name that the Phoenix developers didn't object to, we were very relieved. I can honestly say that no-one expected what has happened. Using "Mozilla Browser" is simply not possible at the moment, because there is already one product with that name. Yet again you assault my integrity with dishonest statements. At the time I became involved, Mozilla HAD been ignoring the Firebird projects complaints. May I join you up there on that high horse? You are also assaulting my integrity by calling me a liar. mozilla.org did not ignore the Firebird project's complaints when this storm broke; we were trying to figure out the best course of action. Projects like Debian and FirebirdSQL may be light and agile project when it comes to policy, making decisions in days and moving on, but unfortunately mozilla.org moves a little more slowly. Up until now, I've resisted joining in this debate publically in any forum, because I was not concerned with the initial naming choice, and didn't feel that the kitchen required any more cooks. Privately, I was initially very sympathetic to the issues raised by FirebirdSQL, and spent time investigating different ways that we could move away from names involving "Firebird" as quickly as possible. However, my stock of goodwill (along with that of most other mozilla.org staff members) has been exhausted by baseless assaults on my integrity and honesty such as the one this message is a comment to. Gerv
Mozilla.org == Sorry Bunch of Lying Bastards! Posted May 18, 2003 12:20 UTC (Sun) by msutherland (guest, #11201) [Link] Trademark registration is not required for trademark validity. Use in trade is sufficient. Trademark registration, by itself, doesn't establish the validity of a mark, but it does move the question into Federal courts.Firebird is in the process of registering the mark "Firebird". The Mozilla group will have opportunity to explain to the US Patent Office their various quaint and creative reasons what Firebird isn't a valid trademark for a database but is for a browser. Then the venue will shift to Federal court. The issues aren't subtle or difficult to master. Firebird has been using the trademark uncontested for three years. They're really nothing left to be said but determine damages. To further add to my complete disprespect of the Mozilla community.... 1. Mozillazine taking the Firebird name and appending a (TM) to it in their forums. In their flawed arrogance, they thought they were being cute. I look at as them acting like a bunch of backward ass nitwit twirps. Lucky for them they recently became endowed with the brains to remove it. 2. In a failed effort to save their sorry faces, they later claim that when they announced their name change from Phoenix to Firebird that they had meant at that time, and all along, that the Firebird was just the 'project' name... and that the 'product' name was Mozilla Browser. That, of course, is load of vile bullshit for several reasons..... Here's the announcement: "Asa Dotzler writes: After months of discussion and further months of legal investigation, we're finally comfortable moving forward with new names. The new name for the Phoenix browser is 'Firebird'. The documentation and product strings will be updated soon. In addition to securing Firebird, we've also got the OK from those contributing legal resources to use the name 'Thunderbird' for a mail client. Hopefully this will be the end of naming legal issues for a while." http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=3075 A. There is absolutely no mention, not even a remote hint, that the name Firbird is simply a project name. In fact, the supposed 'product' name, Mozilla Browser, as you can see, is not even cited. B. If Firebird was meant as a 'project' name... then there is no requirement to 'run it through legal' C. Asa Dotzler was even specifically asked what the *product* name would be by a community member: "SUBJECT: Product Names http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=3075&message=44&state=reply Asa's reply.... "SUBJECT: Re: Product Names --Asa" http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=3075&message=54&state=reply
Logistics Posted May 16, 2003 15:20 UTC (Fri) by Baylink (subscriber, #755) [Link] And *please*, figure out some visible way to quote.I can't follow who's saying what.
What are you trying to say exactly? Posted May 16, 2003 1:16 UTC (Fri) by tpv (guest, #11248) [Link] We are doing our best to accommodate their concerns and worries. However, that does not extend to delaying the release of the Mozilla Firebird Browser 0.6 another two months while we run another name through the lawyers who cleared the current one.That sounds to me to be a polite way of saying: "We made a mistake but we want other people to carry the cost of the mistake, because it would be too hard for us to fix it ourselves". If Mozilla stands by their decision to market the browser under the "Firebird" name (and the annoucement was marketing) then it is a very sad indictment on the organisation. If, on the other hand, Mozilla concedes that the decision was a mistake, then have the guts to pay the price yourselves. Don't expect other to deal with your mistakes. Given the history of delays in the mozilla project, it seems strange to care about a 2 month delay now.
What are you trying to say exactly? Posted May 14, 2003 23:56 UTC (Wed) by pavlov (guest, #11197) [Link] "I am not surprised Apple chose to work with the Konqueror team instead of the Mozilla team."Uh, if you remember correctly Apple worked in secret on this for quite some time. It wasn't until they released the first beta that the Konqueror team had any idea they were using it.
Secrets in the software industry? Hah! Posted May 15, 2003 5:43 UTC (Thu) by roskegg (subscriber, #105) [Link] In my years in the industry, I have yet to observe a sizeable secret that was unknown to some key developers in the Free Software project it concerned. Apple definately had let key developers in on the secret, but under NDA. Just because YOU didn't know about it didn't mean noone knew about it. I stick by my assertion that politics and personalities had a large role in Apples choice between khtml and gecko, even if it was indirectly.Jonathan Walther
Secrets in the software industry? Hah! Posted May 15, 2003 8:36 UTC (Thu) by pavlov (guest, #11197) [Link] No, Sorry, wrong. I was under NDA and did know about it nearly a year before it was announced. Apple could not, and did not, come to the KDE developers because asking them to sign an NDA would have set off alarms and if they didn't sign they would have started rumors.
Secrets in the software industry? Hah! Posted May 15, 2003 18:58 UTC (Thu) by erikharrison (guest, #11204) [Link] So, previously you state that there is something rotten in the state of Mozilla, and only your in-view (which you will not reveal) allows you to see through the skein of Blizzard's lies. Now you claim that Apple also sees this corruption and secretly worked with the KDE team to avoid it, then lied in public to cover that secrecy and their hatred of the project?What? Sir, as someone who respects what the FirebirdSQL project has been through prior to this debacle, I'm offended that you offer this name calling and conspiricy theory in defense of it. What respect the project has will be destroyed by statements like this. While no one will come off clean from this, and both sides (and, it seems, the moderators) have acted badly, FirebirdSQL *is* a small project, and does not need this kind of reputation. Google rank be damned, you make them look bad in the mind of the developer community.
Secrets in the software industry? Hah! Posted May 15, 2003 19:18 UTC (Thu) by msutherland (guest, #11201) [Link] > I'm offended that you offer this name calling and conspiricy theory in defense of it.Good.
|
|
||||||||||||