Christopher Blizzard of mozilla.org Speaks on the Firebird Naming Conflict (MozillaZine)

[Posted May 14, 2003 by corbet]

MozillaZine is running an interview with Christopher Blizzard about the whole Firebird name dispute. "We're simply using a name that's been used over and over again in the past. We've been called all sorts of nasty names over the past few months, being accused of all kinds of malice and ill intent. I can assure you this is not the case. The reality is that if we're guilty of anything it's being a bit apathetic."

to post comments

Another name for "apathetic" that tells the true story

Posted May 14, 2003 18:11 UTC (Wed) by roskegg (subscriber, #105) [Link] (51 responses)

When you see a person drowning, and you are too "apathetic" to throw them a life preserver, that is known in the legal industry as "criminal negligence". I view the actions of the Mozilla team in this case as nothing less.

Firebird was a growing brand that ranked at the top of the Google listings. Mozilla's actions destroyed that search engine goodness, possibly for quite a long time, seriously diluting and confusing their trademark, and reducing the value of the hard work they put into their product.

Mozilla acted in the wrong, and I think they should make monetary restitution to the Firebird team, instead of mealy mouthed weasel words from people like Christopher Blizzard.

It is not my fault that different news writeups of the conflict gave me credit as a mediator; I explicitly told them several times "Mozilla had this thing in the works before I came along; my role was in helping the two sides start talking to each other." I resent Christophers characterization of myself as a Johnny-come-lately just trying to grab credit. I invested a fair bit of time in this, even before I was asked to mediate.

The Firebird project apologized to the Mozilla team, even though they were in the right. It shows the true state of Mozillas moral capital that they have not made any such apology in return, even though their actions were far more grievious.

Mozilla, and before it Netscape, has had a culture of extreme arrogance. I have observed this over a period of more than 5 years. This culture of arrogance smells like shit, and I'm glad the conflict is over and I don't have to deal with it and act as if it didn't stink. If Konqueror could run independently of KDE, I would never recommend Mozilla to anyone again.

Jonathan Walther
Debian Developer

Suuuuuurrrrrreeeee.....

Posted May 14, 2003 18:37 UTC (Wed) by smoogen (subscriber, #97) [Link] (4 responses)

And mozilla developers eat babies too. I dont' think getting money from them is enough. We should give them the death penalty and have their corpses burned in front of all programmers as an object lesson of what happens when you are arrogant.

When I did a firebird search I came up with a lot of references to cars and a couple of mythological references. The first I heard of the firebird database project in a LOOOOOOONNNGGGG time was that Mozilla was using firebird as a project name for mozilla browser and that there was another project with that name (2-3 days later). Now I hear about it once a week or so since then.

Yeah baby, burn!

Posted May 14, 2003 18:54 UTC (Wed) by danny (guest, #1540) [Link]

I don't care what name they use, since the mozilla project still alive and giving the best browser for Linux!

Burn Firebird, Burn!

next item

Posted May 14, 2003 19:03 UTC (Wed) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] (1 responses)

> And mozilla developers eat babies too

c'mon, he didn't accuse them of criminal negligence leading to murder, that was just an analogy. I think he explained the difference between negligence and apathy quite well.

May 2003: There are plenty of groups interested in taking our community apart. M$ would love to see us in-fighting and holding grudges, the activist movements of the 60's were famous for splitting into useless factions over small differences.

I don't like what the Mozilla guys did but they have taken it back (claiming they're not "backing down" but saying the name will only be used for development snapshots).

If you want to use your anger for something, try fighting patents in Europe or fighting for a better patent system in USA/Australia/Japan. Or write some Free documentation, or code a project, or spread the word.

Ciaran O'Riordan

Software patents!

Posted May 15, 2003 7:45 UTC (Thu) by pointwood (guest, #2814) [Link]

Very well said!

Spend time fighting software patents in Europe instead!

Suuuuuurrrrrreeeee.....

Posted May 19, 2003 19:17 UTC (Mon) by rafaelri (guest, #11325) [Link]

What the hell you do??? For sure you aren't a developer... May be u just use Word for doing school tasks...

Another name for "apathetic" that tells the true story

Posted May 14, 2003 18:55 UTC (Wed) by jdthood (guest, #4157) [Link]

> Mozilla, and before it Netscape, has had a culture of extreme arrogance.
>
> Jonathan Walther
> Debian Developer

Are Mozilla's developers even more arrogant than Debian's?
Wow, that's saying something. :)

Another name for "apathetic" that tells the true story

Posted May 14, 2003 19:23 UTC (Wed) by jzb (editor, #7867) [Link] (2 responses)

I think they should make monetary restitution to the Firebird team

That's absolutely ridiculous. How much money is Mozilla making on distributing Mozilla under any name? Not one dime.

When a thief is charged...

Posted May 15, 2003 6:05 UTC (Thu) by roskegg (subscriber, #105) [Link] (1 responses)

When a thief is charged with a crime, his sentence isn't based on how much money HE has, but rather on how much he STOLE. That "Mozilla" as a project doesn't make money matters not a whit. What matters is the havoc that their actions have caused a fellow Free Software project, without any provocation whatsoever.

Just because a thief gives his stolen goods to the local priest for widows and orphans fund doesn't absolve him of full responsibility for the theft.

Jonathan Walther
Debian Developer

No theft, it's `trademark dilution'

Posted May 16, 2003 12:33 UTC (Fri) by Max.Hyre (subscriber, #1054) [Link]

Dear me, now we're calling it `theft' to reuse a common name?

Before you get even more worked up, think about how the MPAA and the RIAA are characterizing fair use of copyrighted material, look at what RMS has to say on`theft' wrt copyright, or on different laws for granting monopolies on ideas, then think carefully about your choice of words.

If we get too wound up in our furor, some concepts we hold very dear (including running Free Software, should Microsoft's Palladium ever take hold) may end up on the trash-heap of history.

Best wishes,
Max Hyre

Another name for "apathetic" that tells the true story

Posted May 14, 2003 19:25 UTC (Wed) by jzb (editor, #7867) [Link] (1 responses)

One other thing -- did you even bother to do a Google search? Firebird Database is the top result I get for searching just for "Firebird." How, exactly, is that "destroyed"?

Another name for "apathetic" that tells the true story

Posted May 14, 2003 19:48 UTC (Wed) by roskegg (subscriber, #105) [Link]

Only because there was special intervention by Google, and that only recently.

Another name for "apathetic" that tells the true story

Posted May 14, 2003 20:03 UTC (Wed) by trutkin (guest, #3919) [Link]

This is rediculous. No one will remember this incident in a year except in
December when LWN gives their yearly retrospective.

This was a naming conflict. Nothing more. There are much more important
problems to get vehement about than some developers acting impolite.

Another name for "apathetic" that tells the true story

Posted May 14, 2003 20:35 UTC (Wed) by proski (guest, #104) [Link] (33 responses)

At least Christopher Blizzard sounds like a developer, not a lawyer, and I think he actually thinks what he says. Lawyers often overreact and care only about legal side of the story, ignoring that their client (or employer as in this case) also cares about being a "good guy" in the eyes of the community. That's especially important for open source projects. Companies are learning this the hard way.

What are you trying to say exactly?

Posted May 14, 2003 20:39 UTC (Wed) by roskegg (subscriber, #105) [Link] (32 responses)

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.

What I'm trying to say is ...

Posted May 14, 2003 21:31 UTC (Wed) by proski (guest, #104) [Link] (3 responses)

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] (2 responses)

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 (guest, #3376) [Link] (22 responses)

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] (20 responses)

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.

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.

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.

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
Debian Developer

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] (1 responses)

"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:]
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.

So you guys have never heard of version numbers?

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] (2 responses)

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.
...
Yet again you assault my integrity with dishonest statements. At the time I became involved, Mozilla HAD been ignoring the Firebird projects complaints.

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] (1 responses)

> The Mozilla staff (& drivers) are not being 'dishonest' in this.

Sure they are. Are you telling me that you buy this line of bullshit?

Give me a break.

> 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.

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] (9 responses)

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] (8 responses)

> 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

Mr. 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] (5 responses)

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] (4 responses)

> 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

Asa replies:

"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 not whether or not someone had an 'idea brewing in their head' of Phoenix being named 'Mozilla Browser'. After all, the original name of Phoenix was Mozilla Browser, or m/b, for short.

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.

> If anything, you should be ashamed.

Me ashamed? You should be ashamed for thinking I would fall for such a flawed 'save face' effort.

BTW, why do you refer to the browser as Mozilla Firebird and the mail as just Thunderbird?

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] (3 responses)

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] (2 responses)

> 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'."

The problem is... the announcemnt said no such thing... not even remotely. Do you know why? I'll tell you why... because it was not a reality then like those misfits from Mozilla.org are claiming.

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] (1 responses)

I wrote: The plan ever since the name needed to change has always been to use Mozilla Browser in the end

You 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.

However, after re-reading this:

"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 (guest, #3376) [Link] (1 responses)

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
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

Asa's reply....

"SUBJECT: Re: Product Names
Yes. We have the Mozilla Firebird browser and the Mozilla Thunderbird email client.

--Asa"

http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=3075&message=54&state=reply

In short, not only now is Mozilla.org a bunch of backward ass nitwit twirps.... they are also a bunch pathetic liars... unworthy of the oxygen that their putrid mouths rape from the earths atmosphere.

Perfect example of Mozilla dishonesty and arrogance

Posted May 15, 2003 9:14 UTC (Thu) by gerv (guest, #3376) [Link] (1 responses)

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.

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]

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....

Here's the announcement:

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
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

Asa's reply....

"SUBJECT: Re: Product Names
Yes. We have the Mozilla Firebird browser and the Mozilla Thunderbird email client.

--Asa"

http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=3075&message=54&state=reply

Logistics

Posted May 16, 2003 15:20 UTC (Fri) by Baylink (guest, #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] (4 responses)

"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] (3 responses)

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
Debian Developer

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] (1 responses)

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.

What does Firebird really want from Mozilla

Posted May 15, 2003 6:19 UTC (Thu) by aditseng (guest, #11209) [Link] (1 responses)

I can't figure it out.

The more the "controversy" continues, the more I feel that FireBirdSQL is slowly going broke and they were looking for the best chance they could to sponge some money off the nearest guy who got caught in their net.

Did Mozilla do wrong?

Possibly; at least they could certainly have done better... Chris Blizzard aptly put it as apathetic - nothing more. Certainly not criminal negligence when you send it to a team of lawyers to vet (and TM) that there is no legal issues with it. Sure, your argument is that there are legal issues, but these are things that lawyers can fight about for years to come with no gain either to FireBirdSQL or to Mozilla Firebird.

Has FireBirdSQL lost something irrevocably out of the controversy?

Yes. Their reputation. Not as makers of a great piece of software, but for their unmitigated rant (hate?) campaign against Mozilla. What are their arguments?
1. Mozilla stole our Firebird name:
Alright even if that is granted, they have informed FirebirdSQL, the Mozilla fan(atics) and the rest of the world that FireBird is actually (A) Mozilla Firebird (B) A Mozilla PROJECT (not product) name and (C) would finally give way to the Mozilla Browser (note the fact that FireBird cannot be found in the name MOZILLA BROWSER!)

2. Mozilla has harmed our branding etc.
People who didn't even know that FireBirdSQL existed now do. How many News.Com readers have seen an article about FireBirdSQL in the last two years (certainly not me, and I read the articles every single day). But there have been numerous articles about Mozilla. Who is the gainer here? Google rankings have gone awry. Sure, perhaps they did. But FirebirdSQL was NOT the FIRST on the list before the controversy (in a search for only FIREBIRD) and now thanks to this controversy (and the great guys at google) it IS THE FIRST! Isn't that cool guys! Here they are claiming that things have gone bad when FireBirdSQL (incl IBPhoenix et. al) show up no less than four times in the top ten and Mozilla FireBird doesn't show up even once in the top twenty. Sure Google changed the ranking, but who benefitted? Mozilla?

3. Mozilla (and Moz developers) are arrogant etc. etc. etc.
Yes, they have been very quiet on the issue. But who can blame them. Chris Blizzard in an interview with Mozillazine says that they WERE to blame for not contacting FireBirdSQL before they came out with the name Mozilla FireBird, but instead of accepting that as an unmitigated statement of regret, people (who know who you are) are accusing him of being mealy mouthed! Apart from everything else name-calling is really really low. Moz developers have from the start not wanted to get into any controversy, and by not saying that much to the public are they being arrogant? I think not.

4. Mozilla has damaged the reputation of the OSS comunity.
Sure, just as much as FireBirdSQL has. The deal should have been Mozilla has done this to us, we are upset, we will send a polite letter of enquiry, expect a response and then if nothing happens follow it up with further action (at that point possibly even legal). Instead mud-raking and mud-slinging is what they got down to from the start. An apology doesn't take that back just as a simple apology wouldn't have made a difference if Mozilla decided to use FireBird for a brand name. FireBirdSQL wanted a brand name review and they got it. What more are they looking for?

As for the rest of
"Mozilla, and before it Netscape, has had a culture of extreme arrogance."
I can't even being to understand how anyone can say this. I started using Mozilla since M5 and the first public gecko build and they have been anything but arrogant. Any time there was some issue the forums and the newsgroups have been full of back and forth (polite) comments until one party or another agreed that they were in the wrong. Mozilla has gone a long way from being a theoretical rewrite of the complete Netscape code. Some say they have gone too far (too big), but that was the idea of re-creating how Mozilla - the product(s) - work.

Apple went with Konqueror because Mozilla was far too big and bloated. The Mozilla developers (who are soooo arrogant) realised that they had got on the wrong train a few stops down the line and they are changing their path to keep on the right track. My that is as arrogant as somebody gets. Instead of whining about Apple's choice (with flame wars) they got down and did something about it. Quietly and quickly. I have to hand it to those guys. They are as corrupt, inefficient, mealy mouthed, self centered, technically incompetent and arrogant as anybody on the planet.

Mozilla.org == Sorry Bunch of Lying Bastards!

Posted May 18, 2003 12:21 UTC (Sun) by msutherland (guest, #11201) [Link]

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....

Here's the announcement:

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
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

Asa's reply....

"SUBJECT: Re: Product Names
Yes. We have the Mozilla Firebird browser and the Mozilla Thunderbird email client.

--Asa"

http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=3075&message=54&state=reply

Any news is good news

Posted May 15, 2003 17:15 UTC (Thu) by Makali (guest, #11236) [Link]

Two points:

1. As the subject above says, the upshot of this whole controversy is that more people know about IBPhoenix and the Firebird database project than ever before.

2. If someone is looking for an open source relational database, they do NOT search for Firebird. Don't be silly. They'd google for "free database" or "open source database". And hell, people search again if they don't find what they want; if "firebird" didn't come up with the database on the first page, the chances are that they'd search again for "firebird database". The "damage" you claim is small at best; and the case for a financial damages claim wouldn't stand up in court. As countless others have said in this comment thread, "Let it go, man". An apology from Mozilla might be nice, simply out of courtesy, but the more salt you rub into the wound, the less likely it is that one will be forthcoming.

Bonus third point: If someone produced a new skateboard, or a film or TV show called Firebird and it shot to the top of the google search for that term, what then? Would you write an angry letter to the film studio? I believe that the analogy is valid, despite the "But Mozilla and IBPhoenix should be on the same side!" caveat. These are very much dissimilar products, and while a naming clash is unfortunate, confusion over the name would be virtually non-existant outside of the Open-source "fandom". Remember, open-source is just the development model - it's a tenuous a link between two products, and outside of the small circle of people whose primary interest is open-source software, no one will give a damn that a free web browser and a free database have similar names.

Disclaimer: I use both Firebird and "that mozilla browser", but I'm not involved in either project, I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not even that clever.

Another name for "apathetic" that tells the true story

Posted May 18, 2003 6:41 UTC (Sun) by hmm (guest, #11294) [Link]

Yawn.

Don't bother responding to this drivel people. A simple google of the man and his web pages indicates he's really not mentally stable enough to waste the time with rational discourse.

Another name for "apathetic" that tells the true story

Posted May 18, 2003 13:13 UTC (Sun) by zangdesign (guest, #11298) [Link]

Mr. Walther,

From your comments, it sounds like you stepped into this mess biased against Mozilla,
which makes you a piss-poor mediator, in my opinion.

i fail to see how Mozilla was at fault here, and no one has yet satisfactorily explained how
the two products could possible be confused, even with the same name, since they have
non-intersecting target audiences.

Mozilla should have told the Firebird team to piss off, or better yet, just ignored them.
Notably, IBPhoenix didn't raise a stick over the browser of a remarkable similar name (i.e.,
Phoenix). Why is that? Not enough publicity?

This whole incident reads as a pathetic attempt by the Firebird organization to scam some
free press by inventing a incident and then attempting to capitalize on it by manipulating
the truth.

Christopher Blizzard of mozilla.org Speaks on the Firebird Naming Conflict (MozillaZine)

Posted May 14, 2003 23:35 UTC (Wed) by BrendanEich (guest, #11194) [Link] (1 responses)

Jonathan Walther writes:

"Firebird was a growing brand that ranked at the top of the Google listings. Mozilla's actions destroyed that search engine goodness, possibly for quite a long time, seriously diluting and confusing their trademark, and reducing the value of the hard work they put into their product."

1. FirebirdSQL.org has no tenable trademark claim on "Firebird" in all software and electronics (category 9).

2. No one is entitled to Google page rank. If you want to buy a placement on google.com results pages, put your money to work, not your mouth.

3. The value of FirebirdSQL doesn't fall or rise with Google page rank, anyway. If it did, the project would have worse problems than any name confusion (among whom? novices who don't know whether they're looking for an RDBMS, a browser, or a car?) could cause.

4. I posted to the firebird-general group well before any "mediation" by Mr. Walther, apologized for my part (I'm a founding and still active member of staff@mozilla.org) in not contacting anyone else using Firebird as a name-part in the open source world, and promised to work to preserve Mozilla as our primary brand (some FirebirdSQL fans among the many who mailbombed everyone associated with mozilla.org were misled or confused into thinking mozilla.org was changing its name to firebird.org). I also pleaded repeatedly for civility and a sense of proportion, and was shown some in reply -- which was a first in all the mailbombing, flaming, and drama-queening of the week before.

The last thing this sorry episode needed was someone posing as a neutral mediator, relatively late in the game, and then showing his utter lack of neutrality. Thanks for nothing, Walther.

/be

Mozilla.org == Sorry Bunch of Lying Bastards!

Posted May 18, 2003 12:22 UTC (Sun) by msutherland (guest, #11201) [Link]

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....

Here's the announcement:

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
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

Asa's reply....

"SUBJECT: Re: Product Names
Yes. We have the Mozilla Firebird browser and the Mozilla Thunderbird email client.

--Asa"

http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=3075&message=54&state=reply

Christopher Blizzard of mozilla.org Speaks on the Firebird Naming Conflict (MozillaZine)

Posted May 14, 2003 23:54 UTC (Wed) by epage (guest, #11195) [Link] (7 responses)

Its a wonder why people are complaining about Mozilla.

If you readt he original roadmap, Firebird always was a code name. The CNet article was missreading the Mozilla people clarrifying that as backing down when tehy were reiterating their stand from the beginning.

Second they specify it to be Mozilla Firebird which means there is absolutely no room for legal question over it. If it was Firebird alone, the question was over how large of scope similar fields is, is it software? types of software?

And third, what about all the other Firebird projects (Common one named FirebirdBBS)?

I do not think GoogleRank can be used to show user confusion but what it does show is popularity and how much press these complaints have been generating

You posted that in ignorance

Posted May 15, 2003 6:02 UTC (Thu) by roskegg (subscriber, #105) [Link] (6 responses)

Firebird was considered the name of the new browser until recently. It is you who are ignorant of history. There was no misunderstanding, and no clarification. Mozilla backed down because they were in the wrong, plain and simple.

Because they continue to lie about it, the ill-will toward them persists. If they would publicly apologize and admit they were wrong, it would raise their stock immeasurably in the Free Software community, and we could all get on with our lives.

The advent of Mozilla Firebird is VERY RECENT. It was not the original plan, Firebird(TM) was the original plan, as posted in many places on the web, including the official Mozilla website. I was involved in convincing them to change all instances of Firebird(TM) on their website to Mozilla Firebird, which they did. For that reason, you can't go back to earlier documents on mozilla.org as "proof" of your assertion; they were altered, and I know because I was there. Check out the Mozilla CVS tree for the website, and you will see the truth.

And third, what about all the other Firebird projects (Common one named FirebirdBBS)?

Ann Harrison and others already addressed this piece of FUD in many forums, including Mozillazine itself. The fact that Chris Blizzard ignores what she says shows his arrogance and demonstrates his, and the Mozilla teams, continuing unwillingness to listen seriously to outsiders. Instead they are doing the minimum amount of listening necessary to make it look like they are doing something constructive so they can shut people up and make them go away.

You posted that in ignorance

Posted May 15, 2003 7:23 UTC (Thu) by djst (guest, #11214) [Link] (5 responses)

Firebird was considered the name of the new browser until recently. It is you who are ignorant of history. There was no misunderstanding, and no clarification. Mozilla backed down because they were in the wrong, plain and simple.

Mr Walther, you are simply wrong. Read my other reply in this thread which proves that you are. You shouldn't post wrongful statements without knowing what you're talking about, which clearly you don't.

You posted that in ignorance

Posted May 15, 2003 7:41 UTC (Thu) by msutherland (guest, #11201) [Link] (4 responses)

> Read my other reply in this thread which proves that you are. You shouldn't post wrongful statements without knowing what you're talking about, which clearly you don't.

David, perhaps you should read my prior reply to you as well.

The only one posting wrongful statements here is you.

You posted that in ignorance

Posted May 15, 2003 9:04 UTC (Thu) by djst (guest, #11214) [Link] (3 responses)

The only one posting wrongful statements here is you.

A statement which you simply cannot back up with any evidence of truth. Incidentally, I have the full message source at home, which I'll be happy to publish here. I'm posting the truth, nothing less. When I've posted the source, feel free to contact my ISP and verify that the email indeed was received on March 28th.

...

Posted May 15, 2003 9:42 UTC (Thu) by msutherland (guest, #11201) [Link] (2 responses)

> 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

Asa replies:

"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 not whether or not someone had an 'idea brewing in their head' of Phoenix being named 'Mozilla Browser'. After all, the original name of Phoenix was Mozilla Browser, or m/b, for short.

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.

> If anything, you should be ashamed.

Me ashamed? You should be ashamed for thinking I would fall for such a flawed 'save face' effort.

BTW, why do you refer to the browser as Mozilla Firebird and the mail as just Thunderbird?

http://texturizer.net/firebird/

http://texturizer.net/thunderbird/

Is there a little 'political correctness' going on there?

...

Posted May 15, 2003 11:36 UTC (Thu) by djst (guest, #11214) [Link] (1 responses)

Nice cross-post. I've already replied to this message elsewhere in this thread.

...

Posted May 15, 2003 12:28 UTC (Thu) by msutherland (guest, #11201) [Link]

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)".

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 problem is... the announcemnt said no such thing... not even remotely. Do you know why? I'll tell you why... because it was not a reality then like those misfits from Mozilla.org are claiming.

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 you were trying to sell me was bullshit.

As far as liars go... the clowns at Mozilla.org are the liars.

Christopher Blizzard of mozilla.org Speaks on the Firebird Naming Conflict (MozillaZine)

Posted May 15, 2003 0:47 UTC (Thu) by msutherland (guest, #11201) [Link] (6 responses)

Look. Both Mozilla.org and Mozillazine.org have a long history of being unable to ever admit they are wrong about anything. The group of people who run the show will make excuses left and right... anything but admit they have erred.

Asa Dotzler is well known for this as are other long term members of the Mozilla.org community. Some of these people are to the point of being religous about their endeavors and Mozilla.org is their Jesus Christ.

Over the years Mozilla.org has become a non-event for all practical purposes. They failed miserably in their once much hyped product, Mozilla, even though the constructive criticisms over the past years were abundant beyond comprehension. The young idealists who drive Mozilla.org operate under the belief that they can do no wrong... that their decisions and courses of actions are above scrutiny.

Sadly, now, after all of these years, Mozilla has become a mere dinky blip on the radar screen that is the world wide web.

Now, they are desperately pinning their hopes on this Phoenix thing and with that, they can't even name it right. Go figure.

Christopher Blizzard of mozilla.org Speaks on the Firebird Naming Conflict (MozillaZine)

Posted May 15, 2003 1:38 UTC (Thu) by BrendanEich (guest, #11194) [Link] (5 responses)

> Look.

No, you look. I'm not young, and I make mistakes often, and admit more than I care to count (which means I make still more, in total).

In spite of my and others' flaws, Mozilla is nothing to sneeze at. It's more complete and standards-conformant than any other open source web browser, and it does other things like mail and news. Parts of it are used as platform components in many projects, open source and commercial.

Mozilla has its share of problems, but what has that obvious truism to do with the topic at hand? "Mozilla has problems" does not mean "FirebirdSQL owns Firebird" in all software domains. It certainly doesn't mean that anyone owes FirebirdSQL.org restitution money, in spite of what shake-down artists here assert.

> Asa Dotzler is well known....

Typical Pravda story lead-in: "As is well-known, [name deleted] is a tool of bourgeois reactionary forces...." Why don't you name just three cases, with quotes from primary sources, where someone failed to ever (sic) admit they are wrong about anything? While you are at it, show some humility and give us links to your confessions of imperfection.

What's more, your screed is incoherently inconsistent. If Mozilla is a non-event, why does our use of Firebird as a project name harm FirebirdSQL.org? You can't have it both ways.

/be

Christopher Blizzard of mozilla.org Speaks on the Firebird Naming Conflict (MozillaZine)

Posted May 15, 2003 3:02 UTC (Thu) by msutherland (guest, #11201) [Link] (4 responses)

Uh oh. Brendan Eich is here. What happened? Was a link to this article posted in a Mozilla newsgroup?

> In spite of my and others' flaws, Mozilla is nothing to sneeze at.

I beg to differ. Not only is Mozilla something to sneeze at... it is something worth laughing at, too.

> It's more complete and standards-conformant than any other open source web browser

Spare me the shiny fruit rhetoric... you say that as if it actually means something.

> Mozilla has its share of problems, but what has that obvious truism to do with the topic at hand?

Mozilla has problems? What year was it that you realized that?

> Why don't you name just three cases, with quotes from primary sources, where someone failed to ever (sic) admit they are wrong about anything? While you are at it, show some humility and give us links to your confessions of imperfection.

Here you go:

http://www.mozillazine.org/archive.html

Happy Reading!

> What's more, your screed is incoherently inconsistent. If Mozilla is a non-event, why does our use of Firebird as a project name harm FirebirdSQL.org? You can't have it both ways.

I love how you have just renamed Firebird to FirebirdSQL...

To answer your question... I didn't know that Mozilla was being renamed to Firebird. If that was the case, then I would tell the Firebird folks that they have nothing to worry about... Mozilla is going nowhere.

On the other hand, Phoenix doesn't amount to anything more than a wart on a lizards left testicle, either, so I'd say the Firbird crew are just protecting their name for principles sake because.... one never knows... Phoenix may... someday... amount to something worth shaking a stick at.

Christopher Blizzard of mozilla.org Speaks on the Firebird Naming Conflict (MozillaZine)

Posted May 15, 2003 17:21 UTC (Thu) by BrendanEich (guest, #11194) [Link] (1 responses)

Yeah, "Mozilla sucks, Phoenix doesn't amount to more than a wart, ...". So why the panic over our use of Firebird? And why does the great msutherland waste his time braying like a jackass about Mozilla? Sutherland, haven't you got better things to do? Let's hear about all your superior achievements. Better yet, go achieve some good thing and report back when you're done.

FirebirdSQL, as in FirebirdSQL.org -- get it?

I read slashdot.org, which led pretty directly here. Flames and trolls, we get enough of on slashdot. LWN.net doesn't need this.

/be

Christopher Blizzard of mozilla.org Speaks on the Firebird Naming Conflict (MozillaZine)

Posted May 15, 2003 18:11 UTC (Thu) by msutherland (guest, #11201) [Link]

> Yeah, "Mozilla sucks, Phoenix doesn't amount to more than a wart, ...".

Well, it's good to see that you have come to your senses. How you people can be so arrogant, and exhalt, over such lame products is beyond comprehension. I'm just glad you fella's aren't in the OS business... Jesus, what a mess that would be.

> So why the panic over our use of Firebird?

I would have to say principle in that their playing it safe and being prudent in protecting and safeguarding their brandname they have fostered over the last three years or so.

Outside of that, I have no clue. Quite frankly, if I had a software product called Firebird... and it came to my attention that some clown over at Mozilla.org named one of their shabby products, Firebird... it wouldn't phase or worry me in the least.

> And why does the great msutherland waste his time braying like a jackass about Mozilla?

Are you kidding? And miss out on the opportunity of telling Brendan Eich, the Grand Daddy of JavaScript, what a complete and total mess Mozilla.org has made of themselves? Not in a million years would I miss this.

> Sutherland, haven't you got better things to do?

At the moment, no.

> FirebirdSQL, as in FirebirdSQL.org -- get it?

My apologies. I meant to quote this bit:

"Mozilla has problems" does not mean "FirebirdSQL owns Firebird"

Christopher Blizzard of mozilla.org Speaks on the Firebird Naming Conflict (MozillaZine)

Posted May 16, 2003 16:03 UTC (Fri) by Baylink (guest, #755) [Link] (1 responses)

His arguments and rhetoric are sane, and have content.

Your replies don't appear to.

Save us the ad hominem, ok?

Mozilla.org == Sorry Bunch of Lying Bastards!

Posted May 18, 2003 12:22 UTC (Sun) by msutherland (guest, #11201) [Link]

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....

Here's the announcement:

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
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

Asa's reply....

"SUBJECT: Re: Product Names
Yes. We have the Mozilla Firebird browser and the Mozilla Thunderbird email client.

--Asa"

http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=3075&message=54&state=reply

Christopher Blizzard of mozilla.org Speaks on the Firebird Naming Conflict (MozillaZine)

Posted May 15, 2003 4:24 UTC (Thu) by vladki (guest, #11207) [Link]

"Mozilla, and before it Netscape, has had a culture of extreme arrogance. I have observed this over a period of more than 5 years. This culture of arrogance smells like shit"

Very true. The thing that has always grabbed me is what on earth do they have to feel arrogant about? Mozilla? Netscape? You have got to be kidding me!

Being arrogant with regards to Mozilla/Netscape would be like the Jews in WWII being arrogant as Hitler was pumping them through the gas chambers.

To this day, Netscape nor Mozilla, could I ever recommend to anyone.

BEWARE!

Posted May 15, 2003 5:41 UTC (Thu) by Sharky (guest, #11210) [Link] (5 responses)

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.

Thank you

Posted May 15, 2003 5:51 UTC (Thu) by roskegg (subscriber, #105) [Link] (4 responses)

Thank you for the warning. I worked to mediate in good faith; I had to put up with Firebird users saying I was biased in favor of Mozilla (which was true), and now Mozilla users are saying I was biased against Mozilla, because I decided to call a spade a spade.

While I was working as a mediator, it was important to stay diplomatic. However that role ended for me almost a week ago when the Mozilla and Firebird developers finally got a channel of communication flowing.

My comments today were made as a private individual who knows that his job is done. Had Christopher Blizzard not given his silly interview, putting all the blame on Firebird and not admitting to the flaws of his own project, I wouldn't have said another word on the topic. I have principles and I try to stick by them. The highest principle is adherence to the truth. A movement or project built on falsehood has a shaky foundation, and will crash sooner than later.

Has anyone else noticed that since Phoenix was made the "official" Mozilla browser, it has started to take on the bloat and long startup times that were so problematic in the previous (Seamonkey) Mozilla browser?

Thank you

Posted May 15, 2003 6:32 UTC (Thu) by jamesh (guest, #1159) [Link] (3 responses)

My comments today were made as a private individual who knows that his job is done.

Your comments today cast doubt over the impartiality of your work as a mediator. Whether you were impartial in your mediation or not, they damage your image of being impartial.

As an example, consider the Microsoft antitrust trial. Judge Jackson's press conference was enough to cast doubt on his impartiality which lead to the apeal.

Thank you

Posted May 15, 2003 7:31 UTC (Thu) by msutherland (guest, #11201) [Link] (2 responses)

> Your comments today cast doubt over the impartiality of your work as a mediator. Whether you were impartial in your mediation or not, they damage your image of being impartial.

Maybe you missed more of his elaboration...

"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.

Thank you

Posted May 15, 2003 8:16 UTC (Thu) by jamesh (guest, #1159) [Link] (1 responses)

Going back to my analogy, was Judge Jackson prejudiced against Microsoft when he decided on the remedies in the Microsoft trial? I don't know. There was enough doubt that his remedies weren't used, and the appeal started.

Johnathan offered to mediate as a neutral third party. His comments today make him look anything but neutral. Maybe the comments are based on some information from discussions and are well founded. If this is the case, then it would help if he could disclose some of this information to help corroborate his allegations. Without that, the comments come accross as biased.

Thank you

Posted May 15, 2003 8:48 UTC (Thu) by msutherland (guest, #11201) [Link]

> Going back to my analogy

Going back to what Jonathan has posted... did you bother reading any of it?

Christopher Blizzard of mozilla.org Speaks on the Firebird Naming Conflict (MozillaZine)

Posted May 15, 2003 12:49 UTC (Thu) by baluba (guest, #11221) [Link]

Please try to keep separated this specific issue to other comments regarding Mozilla project. Generic blaming is not needed and in my opinion harmfull. Grouping on the same comment technical, professional and characterial considerations doesn't make sense either. If a problem has raised between Mozilla and FirebirdSQL developers this has to be settled primarly by involved parts through direct talks.

Obviously anyone has right to express his/her opinions and media to give a coverage. But this is not something we are called to solve as a confrontation among opposing fans and as free software supporters or developers we are also bound to not let the public discussion degenerate in noise.

Christopher Blizzard of mozilla.org Speaks on the Firebird Naming Conflict (MozillaZine)

Posted May 15, 2003 12:49 UTC (Thu) by jamesgraham (guest, #11216) [Link] (2 responses)

First a disclaimer: I came to this story by way of Mozillazine. I am posting this from Mozilla. If you search for my name you'll notice that I've posted on the Mozillazine forums, on the netscape.public.mozilla newsgroups and have done some limited work for the project, for example looking at bugs people have submitted to bugzilla and attempting to reproduce them. If that constitues unacceptable bias, then feel free to ignore me.

I find the conduct of Mr Walther in this affair to be unprofessional and distasteful. Offering to mediate in a dispute in which he has a strong personal dislike of one side represents a clear conflict of interests. He should not have offered to act as an intermeditary in those circumstances. Dispite claims that he " went to bat for the Mozilla team", the best he can offer for his postive role was failing to inform the press that the Mozilla team were (in his opinon) lying. This hardly represents the actions of an individual prepared to make compromises to resolve a conflict in a fair and amicable way.

In this thread, he has accused the Mozilla team of arrogance, whilst responding to comments that disagree with his own opinion with curt and belittling remarks. He has told others that they don't "have the knowledge to evaluate his [Blizzard's] interview", whilst being unprepared to back up his comments with the extra information and context that he feels is necessary to grasp the situation. This attitude suggests that Mr Walther himself is guilty of the arrogance of which he is so eager to accuse others.

In addition, Mr Walther makes unproven allegations, particualy relating to the Safari project, whilst simultaneously arguing that we should "stop with these 'maybes' and suppositions". Apparentley, the irony of this dual value system has passed him by.

He also suffixes his posts "Debian developer", although as far as I am aware, he does not speak on behalf of the Debain project. It would seem to me that if he wants to make inflammatory comments then he should be careful to disassosiate himself from any organisations for which he cannot claim to represent. In his determination to drag the Mozilla project through the mud, it is clear that he is willing to take himself with it. It is tragic that he is prepared to risk damaging the good reputation of the Debian project at the same time.

In my opinion, his lack of impartiality, use of hyperbole and unwillingness to back up his claims when challenged reflect poorly on the character of Mr Walther. I believe it was immoral of him to volunteer to mediate in this dispute and that the fact that he has done so, and the manner in which he has subsequently acted, has brought Mr Walther into considerable disrepute.

Christopher Blizzard of mozilla.org Speaks on the Firebird Naming Conflict (MozillaZine)

Posted May 15, 2003 13:48 UTC (Thu) by msutherland (guest, #11201) [Link]

> First a disclaimer: I came to this story by way of Mozillazine. I am posting this from Mozilla.

Great. So now I know that the weight I should attach to your words should not exceed that of a small bag of chicken feathers.

> I find the conduct of Mr Walther in this affair to be unprofessional and distasteful.

Unprofessional? How could that be? He's no longer a mediator... and if you read a damn thing he said: "My comments today were made as a private individual who knows that his job is done."

> the best he can offer for his postive role was failing to inform the press that the Mozilla team were (in his opinon) lying.

It is not an opinion. It is fact. If Mozilla.org were Pinnochio.. then their nose would extend clear across the globe... right into the middle of Baghdad.

> In this thread, he has accused the Mozilla team of arrogance

That's because he is being honest. The misfits at Mozilla.org are arrogant. The only mystery is... why???? What the hell on earth compels them to be so arrogant?

> I believe it was immoral of him to volunteer to mediate in this dispute

Who the hell are you to lecture anyone about morality? If you want to preach morals to someone... then log in to #mozdev and yack away.

Christopher Blizzard of mozilla.org Speaks on the Firebird Naming Conflict (MozillaZine)

Posted May 15, 2003 14:11 UTC (Thu) by DavidSwinstead (guest, #11226) [Link]

Before posting I will point out that I am in no way connected to mozlla.org, mozillazine, or any part of the FireBird SQL project. My take on this is (almost) completely neutral. And that is all this post is - my own personal take on the situation.

I say _almost_ because I am very fond of the FireBird browser and have been using it for a while. This obviously gives me some bias, however when following this whole farce over the past few months I must admit I have lost a lot of faith in the mozilla.org staff.

Having read all the evidence I find it very hard if not impossible to believe that the intent was always to rename FireBird to Mozilla Browser at release 1.4. In particular, the following statement that _was_ at the Phoenix project page seems to indicate no such intent:

It certainly seems to make their stance quite clear: They have finally secured a name and they are going to stick with it. It doesn't say the name will be Mozilla Firebird, it just says Firebird. And why on Earth would they go through the process of changing even the documentation if it was just a project codename for Bugzilla? The simple answer is that they wouldn't.

However, I don't believe that they ever intended to do any harm to the Firebird SQL project. I also don't see them as being "bullies" over the matter. It appears to me that what they are attempting to do is resolve this as peacefully as they can without an embarrasing total retraction at the demands of a much smaller organsation. It looks to me as though they are attempting a compromise by slightly changing the name for now (to Mozilla Firebird) and implementing a much bigger long-term change - whilst telling their users it was planned all along.

It may anger people who won't believe that Mozilla intended this all along - but what matters isn't that this was never planned, what matters is that it IS planned NOW. They may not be being totally honest about why they're doing it - probably to save face - but at least they're doing it.

You can argue all day about how much this has damaged Firebird and it's google ranking but what's done is done. The more that debates like this mention the names, the more the google results will be diluted by shit. It's still the top result on google and AFAIK they (Firebird SQL) don't make any money so they can't possibly have lost money from it. Their name hasn't been affected *that* badly. In fact you could argue it's been helped along a little by all of this; Personally I had never heard of the project before any of this kicked off. I'm now considering using it. I suspect I'm far from alone.

I await my flames eagerly.

Mozilla.org = A load of bologna

Posted May 15, 2003 13:29 UTC (Thu) by msutherland (guest, #11201) [Link]

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)".

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 problem is... the announcemnt said no such thing... not even remotely. Do you know why? I'll tell you why... because it was not a reality then like those misfits from Mozilla.org are claiming.

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 you were trying to sell me was bullshit.

As far as liars go... the clowns at Mozilla.org are the liars.

Peace?

Posted May 15, 2003 14:13 UTC (Thu) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] (2 responses)

It's almost a exactly year, now, since we made it possible to post comments on LWN. We've managed to avoid a flat-out flamewar all that time - until now. I guess it was inevitable.

Could I respectfully suggest, however, that this conversation has gone about as far as it needs to? Let's all go off and flame SCO; we can agree on that one...:)

Peace?

Posted May 16, 2003 16:13 UTC (Fri) by Baylink (guest, #755) [Link] (1 responses)

Apparently, Jon, no, you can't. :-}

Peace?

Posted May 19, 2003 5:38 UTC (Mon) by frodoballs (guest, #10827) [Link]

You know, the real problem here is that engineers aren't usually good diplomats. It speaks
rather badly of Mozilla.org's adult supervision that they allowed engineers to handle this
name change and then didn't rein them in when the firestorm began. A simple 'Mea Culpa'
early on from Mozilla would have done wonders for PR on both sides of the fence.

And it doesn't matter who's right -- the point is that the situation as it stands is in no one's
best interest. Sometimes you have to be an adult and stand on higher ground. Seems like
Mozilla's allowing themselves to be driven by engineering ego, at least just a little bit...

Comment from someone mostly disinterested, FWIW

Posted May 15, 2003 14:28 UTC (Thu) by csigler (subscriber, #1224) [Link] (4 responses)

I'm not a part of the Mozilla browser or Firebird database communities. Because of this, I've been mostly disinterested in this dispute so far. So, FWIW, here's my reaction to all of this noise:

At first, I thought it was quite a misstep for Mozilla to enlist the Firebird name for good ol' Phoenix. I had heard of the Firebird database before, and I've done almost no database/SQL work. I felt that Mozilla just plain should have looked harder for another name.

But what I've read in this particular LWN thread has dramatically changed my attitude on this subject. I certainly hope that the Firebird database supporters who've posted here (most notably roskegg and msutherland) are _not_ representative of the attitudes and behavior of the Firebird community as a whole. I find their posts to be, at best, rude and distasteful. They've chosen to ignore the arguments and data presented by supporters of the Mozilla side of the dispute. They've resorted to profanity and a reference to the holocaust (posted by vladki). When this happens, it quite frequently indicates who's the loser of an argument.

Now I have little doubt that, though they made a serious mistake, the Mozilla folks are on the right side of this end game. Again, FWIW.

Clemmitt

Comment from someone mostly disinterested, FWIW

Posted May 15, 2003 15:34 UTC (Thu) by msutherland (guest, #11201) [Link] (2 responses)

> I'm not a part of the Mozilla browser or Firebird database communities. Because of this, I've been mostly disinterested in this dispute so far. So, FWIW, here's my reaction to all of this noise:

Yeah right. Let me guess. You'll end up exhalting the shit-for-brains crew that is Mozilla.org. Spare me the bull, would ya.

> I certainly hope that the Firebird database supporters who've posted here (most notably roskegg and msutherland) are _not_ representative of the attitudes and behavior of the Firebird community as a whole.

You needn't concern yourself in my case. I came here via a link plastered on the front page of Mozillazine. Why was I at Mozillazine? I pop in every now and then to check on their latest whines and moans.

As far as the Firebird database... I don't use it. For that matter, I don't use Linux. Why the hell would I want to use Linux? So I can brag at office cocktail parties how I use GNUCash for personal finances? To show Bill Gates a thing or two? To play all day writing bash scripts? Or even worse... be stuck with the piece of garbage that is Mozilla? Get real, man. Linux as a desktop client is great for young geeks that are unable to operate a fishing pole, want to play with their operating system all day long, and who are too freaking ugly to get a date... let alone, have a life (free from mind altering drugs, at least).

So cool your jets, buddy. Don't hold my disgust of Mozilla.org against the Firebird Database people... I have nothing to do with them.

Comment from someone mostly disinterested, FWIW

Posted May 15, 2003 15:58 UTC (Thu) by csigler (subscriber, #1224) [Link] (1 responses)

> Yeah right. Let me guess. You'll end up exhalting the shit-for-brains
> crew that is Mozilla.org. Spare me the bull, would ya.

Well, I believe that's up for debate. I said I believe Mozilla made a serious mistake in choosing the Firebird name. I also said I believe that they're on the right side of this naming dispute end game (not the whole dispute). So, to me, it's a little from Column A and a little from Column B.

I guess I find myself wondering why you'd accuse me of lying about being a (prior to this, mostly) disinterested party in this dispute? If you'd be so kind, please answer this question for me.

> So cool your jets, buddy. Don't hold my disgust of Mozilla.org against
> the Firebird Database people... I have nothing to do with them.

(With all due respect, your jets may be warm, but mine aren't.)

So, you only have an anti-Mozilla axe to grind, then? You have no standing in this dispute which will be affected by its outcome? Again, please be so kind as to answer these questions for me.

It's my opinion that the Firebird database folks are being greatly harmed by your willful, ignorant, and foul-mouthed attacks on Mozilla in this forum over the naming dispute.

... And if you're just some jerk who gets his jollies from flame-trolling, I apologize in advance to the LWN community for engaging you....

Clemmitt

P.S.: I will only answer replies to the questions I have posted above. Thanks.

Oops

Posted May 15, 2003 16:26 UTC (Thu) by msutherland (guest, #11201) [Link]

> P.S.: I will only answer replies to the questions I have posted above.

You mean that if I don't answer your questions then you'll recoil back into your disinterested state?

Comment from someone mostly disinterested, FWIW

Posted May 15, 2003 16:25 UTC (Thu) by msutherland (guest, #11201) [Link]

> P.S.: I will only answer replies to the questions I have posted above.

You mean that if I don't answer your questions then you'll recoil back into your disinterested state?

Mediation

Posted May 15, 2003 14:46 UTC (Thu) by asacarny (guest, #11228) [Link] (5 responses)

A proper mediator in a dispute must not ally himself with one side. He must recognize problems in both sides' arguments and work to resolve them. Mr. Walther has asserted that he never asked to be portrayed as a mediator, saying, "It is not my fault that different news writeups of the conflict gave me credit as a mediator." However, he refers to his actions as a mediator in his replies to this article: "I worked to mediate in good faith." So, although he claims otherwise, I see his actions as an attempt to mediate. But Mr. Walther brings up two points, which call his mediation into question:
1) He uses Mozilla and Firebird's competitor, postgres. This, he asserts, makes him biased in favor of Mozilla. But the use of a product does not mean a bias towards it in a dispute. What implies bias is being actively involved in a project. For example, the postings on this article warning about Mozilla sympathizers coming only occurred when the article was linked to MozillaZine. On the other hand, no one besides Mr. Walther has so strongly emphasized _browser choice_ as a factor. I do not see this point as a real bias.
2) He sees that Mozilla specifically "acted in the wrong" while Firebird was "in the right". Thus, at the moment, he sides completely with Firebird.
Presumably he did not make the latter realization only once he had finished "mediating." It is unacceptable for a mediator to come out of a dispute with such vitriol.
I'm also a bit shocked by his attitude, with so much cursing and flaming. In my opinion, his argument would be much more convincing if he used more conservative tactics. I also enjoyed reading pavlov destroy Mr. Walther's claim that Mozilla was arrogant for Apple.
Adam

Mediation

Posted May 15, 2003 15:19 UTC (Thu) by ajf (guest, #10844) [Link] (4 responses)

It's quite clear from his very first comment in this discussion that he did not enter this debate without unfavourable preconceptions concerning mozilla.org: "Mozilla, and before it Netscape, has had a culture of extreme arrogance. I have observed this over a period of more than 5 years."

Mediation

Posted May 15, 2003 15:31 UTC (Thu) by asacarny (guest, #11228) [Link]

And yet he considers what he did to be mediating. That is a major problem.

Mediation

Posted May 15, 2003 15:50 UTC (Thu) by msutherland (guest, #11201) [Link] (2 responses)

asacarny and ajf,

The following statement...

"Mozilla, and before it Netscape, has had a culture of extreme arrogance. I have observed this over a period of more than 5 years."

...is merely evidence that he who said it is an intelligent, rational, and, most of all, honest person.

Mediation

Posted May 15, 2003 21:12 UTC (Thu) by i5mast (guest, #11242) [Link]

"he who said it is an intelligent, rational, and, most of all, honest person"
that may well be true but it doesn't help in a mediation process.

Mediation

Posted Jan 1, 2004 16:49 UTC (Thu) by brobinson (guest, #18365) [Link]

Do you work for Microsoft?

Christopher Blizzard of mozilla.org Speaks on the Firebird Naming Conflict (MozillaZine)

Posted May 15, 2003 16:58 UTC (Thu) by csigle (guest, #11235) [Link] (2 responses)

I'm just a disinterested person. A disinterested person who doesn't have any involvement with either the Mozilla or Firebird SQL communites. Although I'm disinterested, I felt that I should waste my time reading through all of these comments and then compose and post a reply. FWIW, of course.

I was initially thinking that Firebird was simply over-reacting. After reading through these posts, though, I am now not so sure of that. In fact, it has become quite clear to me that Mozilla.org is one screwed up organization.

I'd like to specifically respond to this:

"Mozilla, and before it Netscape, has had a culture of extreme arrogance. I have observed this over a period of more than 5 years. This culture of arrogance smells like shit, and I'm glad the conflict is over and I don't have to deal with it and act as if it didn't stink."

I empathize deeply with your position. The foul stench from Mozilla/Netscape is an intense and putrid one, indeed. From what I've been reading, the sour and stale rants from the Mozilla community have proven to be quite toxic on ones nostrils.

I can only hope that, someday, a regime change will take place at Mozilla.org and that the new leadership will know better to flush their oral toilets, long before the shit piles up.

Christopher Blizzard of mozilla.org Speaks on the Firebird Naming Conflict (MozillaZine)

Posted May 16, 2003 22:19 UTC (Fri) by gerv (guest, #3376) [Link] (1 responses)

After reading through these posts, though, I am now not so sure of that. In fact, it has become quite clear to me that Mozilla.org is one screwed up organization.

<snip more un-constructive abuse>

It would be more informative if you stated what in these threads led you to this conclusion, apart from the unsupported and polemical assertions of others. What are you accusing mozilla.org of?

Gerv

Mozilla.org == Sorry Bunch of Lying Bastards!

Posted May 18, 2003 12:18 UTC (Sun) by msutherland (guest, #11201) [Link]

> What are you accusing mozilla.org of?

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....

Here's the announcement:

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
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

Asa's reply....

"SUBJECT: Re: Product Names
Yes. We have the Mozilla Firebird browser and the Mozilla Thunderbird email client.

--Asa"

http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=3075&message=54&state=reply

Wow! Such harshness...

Posted May 16, 2003 20:05 UTC (Fri) by faerealm (guest, #11273) [Link] (2 responses)

Despite any arguments one way or the other, I must agree as an outside commentator that msutherland and Mr. Walther's comments amount to a pile of ad hominem crap external to the actual matter in debate.

There is no doubt that Firebird SQL has been around longer than Mozilla, and I believe that at least some of the Mozilla team should have heard of it before their TM application. However, there is no Trademark registered for Firebird by the Firebird SQL team that I can find in a TM search, and Mozilla's lawyers were correct in stating that the term was not obstructed (though it might have been - unbeknownst to the lawyers - unregisterable due to prior use from Firebird SQL and BBS). To me, that makes those defending Firebird (including the Firebird Website) look like a bunch of radical fanatics compared to the rational if somewhat defensive statements given by the Mozilla team.

Any claim of search rankings is ludicrous - if I wanted to search for the Firebird SQL server, I wouldn't expect to find anything on just the term 'Firebird'. Adding in the word 'Database' or 'SQL' would immediately screen out Mozilla products (or projects), as well as a bazillion pages for cars, sports teams, and myths.

In short, get over it. The whole thing's been hyped all out of proportion.

WRONG!

Posted May 18, 2003 12:16 UTC (Sun) by msutherland (guest, #11201) [Link] (1 responses)

"There is no doubt that Firebird SQL has been around longer than Mozilla, and I believe that at least some of the Mozilla team should have heard of it before their TM application. However, there is no Trademark registered for Firebird by the Firebird SQL team that I can find in a TM search, and Mozilla's lawyers were correct in stating that the term was not obstructed (though it might have been - unbeknownst to the lawyers - unregisterable due to prior use from Firebird SQL and BBS). To me, that makes those defending Firebird (including the Firebird Website) look like a bunch of radical fanatics compared to the rational if somewhat defensive statements given by the Mozilla team."

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....

Here's the announcement:

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
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

Asa's reply....

"SUBJECT: Re: Product Names
Yes. We have the Mozilla Firebird browser and the Mozilla Thunderbird email client.

--Asa"

http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=3075&message=54&state=reply

WRONG!

Posted Jan 1, 2004 16:49 UTC (Thu) by brobinson (guest, #18365) [Link]

You've posted this what 10 times?

The lack of a TM registration led to the belief that it was not someone's trademark causing the whole debacle. That is what is being said. I don't believe they mean it as a reason why they can go ahead and use it, though they CAN use "Mozilla Firebird" but not "Firebird".

Personally, I wish they'd have chosen different names to begin with.

Christopher Blizzard of mozilla.org Speaks on the Firebird Naming Conflict (MozillaZine)

Posted May 17, 2003 22:33 UTC (Sat) by HansB (guest, #11282) [Link]

Mozilla acted in the wrong, and I think they should make monetary restitution to the Firebird team, instead of mealy mouthed weasel words from people like Christopher Blizzard.

Mozilla.org == Sorry Bunch of Lying Bastards!

Posted May 18, 2003 12:17 UTC (Sun) by msutherland (guest, #11201) [Link] (2 responses)

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....

Here's the announcement:

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
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

Asa's reply....

"SUBJECT: Re: Product Names
Yes. We have the Mozilla Firebird browser and the Mozilla Thunderbird email client.

--Asa"

http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=3075&message=54&state=reply

Mozilla.org == Sorry Bunch of Lying Bastards!

Posted May 18, 2003 13:32 UTC (Sun) by zangdesign (guest, #11298) [Link] (1 responses)

Your attitude alone has pretty much soured my opinion of the entire Firebird (the database)
community. You heap calumny and vituperation on the Mozilla organization without offering
any solid reasons, beyond some some reference to arrogance, stupidity, and some other
vague references.

I'm curious -- where's the beef? Do you have concrete reasons for your hatred or are you
just mouthing off because you can hide behind the anonymity of a web forum?

Mozilla.org == Sorry Bunch of Lying Bastards!

Posted May 18, 2003 22:22 UTC (Sun) by msutherland (guest, #11201) [Link]

> Your attitude alone has pretty much soured my opinion of the entire Firebird (the database) community.

I have news for you, Tonto... I have *nothing* to do with the Firebird database so feel free to make like a fart and blow back to the disgraceful and pathetic joke of an organization that is Mozilla.org.

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....

Here's the announcement:

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
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

Asa's reply....

"SUBJECT: Re: Product Names
Yes. We have the Mozilla Firebird browser and the Mozilla Thunderbird email client.

--Asa"

http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=3075&message=54&state=reply

Christopher Blizzard of mozilla.org Speaks on the Firebird Naming Conflict (MozillaZine)

Posted Jan 3, 2004 16:17 UTC (Sat) by Harrison (guest, #18415) [Link]

http://www.flyfirebird.com/
http://www.firebirdarts.com/
http://www.firebirdbooks.com/

Honestly, I don't see them complaining. True, their product(s) have nothing to do with a browser, so there's no competition, right?

What's a browser got to do with a database then? They're both computer-related, but they've got no competetion between one another.

And I also don't see IBPhoenix complaining about them either. What if Firebird Books suddenly replaced Barnes&Noble and now, when you searched on google, got the first 20 hits?

IBPhoenix is making a big deal out of nothing. It's a name, and not a very original one from what I can tell. I mean, do you know how many companies and products are named "Phoenix?" I don't see them suing each other. Examples:
Phoenix Technologies
IBPhoenix
Boston Phoenix
Project Phoenix (http://www.seti.org/science/ph-bg.html)
StarPhoenix (http://www.canada.com/saskatoon/starphoenix/)
PHOENIX CORPORATION (http://www.phoenixcorp.com/)

Sure, the names vary slightly. But so do "Firebird" and "Mozilla Firebird."