Re: [Linux-aus] Firefox vs IceWeasel

["Janet Hawtin" <lucychili@gmail.com>]

We do live in interesting times hey.

We are at a point in FOSS development where the laws around copyright
and trademarks
are at odds with the very real and useful model that open source offers.
IMHO It is wise for the debian group to choose a 'correct' path.
ie IceWeasel is a lawful response within the current framework.
Is it time to be thinking about alternate models for trademarks
specifically tailored for FOSS.
A community version of the Firefox trademark specifically for lawful
redistribution of FOSS would also be a correct answer.

The project is useful as you say and could be a good project to lead
change. If we want laws to work well with the model that FOSS presents
we need to be proactive in fostering change to accommodate FOSS. Law
is evolving in ways which suit other kinds of groups because they
lobby for change to suit their business models. We need to do the
same.
The issue is (as I understand it) not restricted to Firefox and Debian
specifically and is a disjoint between traditional functions of
trademarks and modern modes of development and distribution.

The issue is something which can only be systemically corrected by a
change in the function of FOSS trademarks.

I feel that this is similar to the GPL debate because we have
contention internally with regard to an external framework.

With the GPL debate the DMCA, DRM, TPM have created a change in the
legal context of FOSS which means that GPLv3 is the 'correct' response
to this legal context.

Understanding that all projects which are not fully open are in some
way at risk is a part of recognising that the change in copyright law
has a cost on innovation.

For that matter all projects which have components from more than one
copyright holder in a closed project will have the same risks. This is
not specifically a FOSS issue it is a
generic innovation issue.

Response to that change can take a range of paths but turning a blind
eye to the risk is not one of them. Looking at the components which
are mixed and perhaps negotiating copyright amnesties/treaties about
ongoing use of technologies and licensing projects LGPL might be
part of the solution.

In both cases the initial correct response for FOSS is an important
starting point in
looking at how the legal frameworks are creating obstacles for devloopment.
Tackling the laws which are causing these obstacles is one path,
changing ways of working to address the issues while keeping FOSS safe
is another path.

Denying the issues and ignoring the correct path in both cases is not
a step forwards and compromises FOSS. There is a lot of work involved
in changing the way that things are negotiated on both counts, it
would be better if the energies were able to be channelled into really
tackling solutions. I feel that while this may feel expensive in the
short term, the ability to trust that FOSS is careful to be correct
will be better for our long term market share.

This is where we should take another look at the Dream IT Policy
proposed a few weeks ago and think about how policies and laws foster
or fragment innovation and how FOSS is able to lobby to shift the
framework to suit our model as much as possible. This is the real long
term shift we need to make to secure and grow our market share. We
need laws which support and enable the FOSS sector.

Janet