It seems that someone is distributing a modified copy of firefox portable. From what I understand, its not allowed.
http://lifehacker.com/5169172/mediafox-a-firefox-build-with-media-on-the...
New: DesktopSnowOK (Jan 6, 2025), Platform 29.5.3 (Jun 27, 2024)
1,100+ portable packages, 1.1 billion downloads
No Ads!, Please donate today
Visit the Community page
Join our forums
Subscribe to our email newsletter
Subscribe with RSS
Follow us on BlueSky
Follow us on Facebook
Follow us on LinkedIn
Follow us on Mastodon
Follow us on Twitter
Well, somebody with a LifeHacker account should complain for us
doing that now. If a public post doesn't help, I'll email Gina and or Adam and Kevin
Lead, Follow, or get out of the way.
I sent them the email below:
Thankyou very much.
Too many lonely hearts in the real world
Too many bridges you can burn
Too many tables you can't turn
Don't wanna live my life in the real world
Here's their reply...
The link is now taken down.
Hey Thanks, I was just about to do that myself.
Lead, Follow, or get out of the way.
one of many they have. There is one called FoxGLove, a Google-happy set-up with lots of plugins for Google and the poster AsianAngel posted how to set up what's called the Firefox 6 pack. It's 6 instances of Firefox set up for different tasks, with run multiple instances enabled.
was the 6pack distributed, or is it just instructions for how to set it up?
The developer formerly known as ZGitRDun8705
was instructions for set up, the FoxGLove was distributed as it was configured in a zip file.
Edit: The FoxGLove may have been rebranded with the FoxGLove name, but it still uses the Firefox logo, although there is another logo included, but not used.
While all the pieces of Andrew's modification are publicly available and you could recreate the build with a few minutes of tinkering, he was courteous enough to create a virgin build with all the modifications ready for you to enjoy.
No good deed goes unpunished.
How dare he try to be helpful. Doesn't he know Open Source is can't be shared without lawyers involved? LOL
Ed
I'm a bit in doubt, does it mean that alternate titles for different unofficial builds of FireFox may not contain the words Fire and/or Fox?
The icon as well I think. It's a part of the whole trademark and branding protection... I think.
PortableApps.com Advocate
If you are doing any modification and redistribution of Firefox, you can't use the registered trademarks Mozilla or Firefox. You have to recompile Firefox without any of the trademark branding... calling it IceWeasel or something else.
Unless you get specific permission from Mozilla as PortableApps.com does. And that permission doesn't extend to 3rd parties. Like the local Firefox, you can only redistribute our unaltered, digitally signed binaries.
An open source license does not give you the right to use someone else's trademarks.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
Do you honestly think Mozilla, who owns FireFox, is going to sue someone who is showing a way to extend the usefulness of their product?? Do you really think they are against MediaFox? If so they certainly have the legal resources on staff to bury the author. But I think they are smart enough to realize people who freely enhance their product and help increase it's market share are more of an asset than a liability.
And people like that usually have no money to pay for penality fees anyways. LOL
Ed
Technically Mozilla is entitled to sue them but I agree they probably won't. However for legally recognised entities/organisations (eg. Rare Ideas, ) they are more accountable. Even if there is little chance say Mozilla would sue them for developing and distributing Mediafox they usually will not distribute for it compromises them.
No expert but that's how I see the situation.
PortableApps.com Advocate
Mozilla has a $50 million dollar a year trademark. And that income is dependent on that trademark. When someone creates an unauthorized package that is unstable, does random things like install icons to your desktop (like this package does), has a bad-looking theme or layout, etc, it can damage that trademark. That's the reason that a company like Mozilla has a trademark policy that prohibits unauthorized modifications connected with the Firefox trademark.
I obviously wasn't suggesting that Mozilla was going to sue this random author. They may have the file taken down, though.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
It's funny, how we think of or thought of open source as the answer to the problem presented by Microsoft and other megacorps buying everything and/or tying up innovation in miles of red tape, but then, a few years in, Mozilla looks, to some, to be the next Microsoft.
I understand Mozilla has a right to protect its trademark and all that, and I understand that an open source license doesn't mean you can modify something and then redistribute it under the same name (unless you're allowed, e.g. PA.c).
It's just ironic that a lack of understanding causes the illusion of coming full circle. Really, open source is a heck of an improvement over the way things were. I think we may be on the cusp of a new era in computing. When I was a kid, you had 4-5 different platforms that could all be called PCs but none were compatible with one another (kind of like how you have 360, PS3, Wii, DS, and PSP now, the game systems) and if you wanted a game or piece of software, you had to hope it was native or ported. Then Microsoft replaced IBM and only Apple survived when Atari, Amiga, and the others fell, and it became Microsoft's world. After XP and the failure of Vista and the imminent failure of 7 (yeah, I said it), Linux in all its 50 billion flavors is starting to look pretty hot. And either I'm wrong and Microsoft will hold on for the next decade... or open source is gonna get its day in the sun.
Quite annoyingly, when an open source project becomes big (Firefox, OpenOffice.org), they become protective of their trademark. They are afraid that someone will ruin their bad name. Why? Just because a random project was created called SuckyFox or FireBad that puts a virus on your computer, doesn't mean I'll stop using Firefox. The problem starts when someone creates a website like mozil.lafiref.ox.com (not a real site), makes it look like the Firefox site, and distributes a virus-laden Firefox. THAT is a problem. Program importers are bad. Those who mean no harm to the project should not have it so hard to get access to the trademark. AbiWord has a cool, unique policy where you can, without permission, use their trademark if you put "Personal" behind it (i.e. "AbiWord Personal").
I've been trying to get permission from Mozilla about the Firefox/Thunderbird/Sunbird trademarks since 2 years ago, they don't even reply! I have to use IceWeasel/IceDove/IceOwl instead...
What's strange is that all the other open source projects (other than Mozilla) I've contacted so far for permission for trademarks for Linux PA, they all say that I can use their trademark because the GPL gives me that right. I'm not sure of that... Is that right?
Yes GPL does give you the right, but with some catches.
But FF is licensed MPL (which you probably know). And that changes everything.
Firefox is tri-licensed. But open source licenses don't give you the right to use someone's trademarks in the way that people are trying to here.
You're completely welcome to use the Firefox code to make your own browser. Or your own portable browser. You just can't use the words Mozilla or Firefox in the name or claim that Mozilla or PortableApps.com approves of it. It's really not that difficult.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
I can never understand why it's so hard to understand that difference between open source / free software and that which bears trademarks. Mozilla, Sun, Canonical, etc are doing great things for the open source community and without them is would likely be much smaller an undeveloped. It's only natural that these companies hold trademarks on the software they produce while still allowing you to do whatever you'd like with the code under the said license.
Without a minimum of trademark control, everybody could do a modified Firefox client, and claims it to be the official one. Imagine all the malicious codes that could embed some kind of trojans or spyware into it, and make it identical to the official version?
That would be a nightmare, and I'm all for trademark control when it is reasonable. However, I find thing like Apple and the Podium trademark issue far-stretched..