Firebird Database Project Issues New Statement on Naming Debate
Thursday May 1st, 2003
On Tuesday, the Firebird database project's main front page was updated with another statement from the Firebird Admins about the naming controversy. The announcement suggests that the database project's leaders may be satisified if mozilla.org and related sites follow the policy of the Mozilla branding guidelines to the letter and only ever refer to the former Phoenix browser as 'Mozilla Firebird'. According to the update, the Firebird Admins, the FirebirdSQL Foundation committee and the IBPhoenix principals (the IBPhoenix site appears to be down right now) sent a formal letter to mozilla.org on Friday and are awaiting a response.
The statement also links to an assessment of the Firebird database community's legal position, published by the FirebirdSQL Foundation. We were not able to verify the accuracy of this legal advice, which was researched by Pavel Cisar, one of the database project's administrators, and two unnamed legal consultants. Interestingly, the document reveals for the first time that the FirebirdSQL Foundation is considering suing mozilla.org. In the past, the group has claimed that they are not interested in taking legal action and could not afford to anyway. The Foundation has also published another summary of how they believe mozilla.org's use of the Firebird name harms the database project.
#80 Re: Sorry, we tried and we're still trying
Monday May 5th, 2003 6:39 AM
You are replying to this message
"Their activity through the mediator apparently started and stopped with a demand for an appology for trying to contact them, which they promptly turned into a headline article on Mozillazine."
They didn't put the article on MozillaZine, I did. With no prompting from anybody else. MozillaZine is largely independent of the actions of mozilla.org. Any anyway, why did Ann Harrison announce the apology if she wasn't happy with it being publicised?
"Your accusation of spamming is false and unfair. All the Firebird folks did was repost the email addresses of the Mozilla principles as posted on the Mozilla site. They made to efforts to recruit anyone to mailbomb these people."
I assume "to" in the last sentence should be "no".
While that may be true, it was a best naive not to anticipate the reaction the reposting would cause. And posting 24 email addresses (or however many it was) would seem a little excessive to me.
"And, correct me if I'm wrong, none of the people listed have actually complained about the mail they received."
Mike Kaply, who works on Mozilla for IBM, did in a posting to Slashdot: <http://slashdot.org/comme…sid=60930&cid=5748691>
"On the other hand, Mozilla members have send death threats to Ann and any number of obscene mail messages. If we wanted to play at the level of Mozilla, you would have seen a headline in the mainstream press 'Software Group Issues Death Threat'."
That headline would be unfair as the leaders of mozilla.org (Staff, Drivers etc.) did not issue nor condone the death threats (at least I hope they didn't). Diverse open source communities do not act as one entity.
That said, I'm appalled that Ann has received death threats. If you believe that they are serious, you should report them to the police.