Comment 526 for bug 269656

Hi Mark, all,

I had time to read over the services wording, and I can't find serious fault with it, but IANAL. I'm sure you are asking one, so here's my only suggested change:

Firefox also *offers optional* web site information services, such as blah blah....

Instead of:

Firefox also *uses* web site information services....

http://launchpadlibrarian.net/17877776/about_rights_expanded.png

The reason for the suggested change is so people are aware that Firefox works perfectly well without the service, so they won't be afraid to turn it off if they don't want that kind of protection. If it were me, I'd explain what a "web site information service" is. It's an antiphishing service, no? Why not say so?

  I'm not clear why they use the plural "services" instead of "service" throughout. If there are several, what else is there? Or if there is only the one, are they preparing for future services? I hope not, since you don't want people to say I agree to unknown things.

6 worries me a bit, from Mozilla's standpoint. If they update, will they get an "I agree" at that time? I hope so.

Trademarks:

For the record, I would be very happy if every project understood the purpose of trademark law better. The purpose is to protect the public, so you don't buy a Brand X pretend Gucci bag instead of the real thing and get ripped off.

That's the purpose. It prevents litigation against the wrong party, and it prevents unjust damage to reputations. And it's the law, whether you make it work for you or not. You don't have to register a trademark to have one, and you can lose one if you don't act to protect it. After that, your name is in the winds, usable by anyone. Why wouldn't you make the law work for you instead of against you? A really large project has to, I think, because others will try to rip off the reputation of any successful project. It is what it is.

Whether the actual requirements here to protect the marks are needed or not as set forth, I can't say, because it would require a lawyer, not just me, and more knowledge of the specifics than I have. But to take affirmative steps to protect your project is just good sense, in my view, and I not only understand Mozilla's worries, I support in that generalized sense their desire to protect themselves. The law compels them.

And, of course I'm a huge fan of yours too, Mark. Really. Seriously.

On grannie, though, I think you may want to think from a different standpoint. I acknowledge your amazing skill and energy at mobilizing and spreading acceptance of GNU/Linux on the desktop. And part of that skill is your ability to figure out what makes it accessible to grannie too.

So it's natural you think about her and what she needs. I surely don't want to undermine those special abilities you've demonstrated. I admire them.

The only caution I feel is this: the first goal is to provide a free and open source system. After that comes usability, ease of use, convenience, protection of users, etc.

Why? I think it's because that's why we are all here, working without a dime, in many cases, just because we see the value of a computer that we can trust.

I know when I sit down at a computer, and I have more than one operating system, I feel very differently when I'm in Mandriva or Kubuntu than I do on my Mac. The Mac is simple and easy and it just works, and I enjoy that. But I always know when I use it that I'm not altogether in control. I can't turn off Bonjour, at least not in a way Apple will tell me about, or Spotlight, etc. So I'm never actually alone.

When you don't know for sure what a computer is doing that you don't know about, it feels very different. When I'm in Kubuntu, in contrast, I can breathe, because I know I can make it do what I want. I can change it, I can look at it, I can choose to configure it any way I choose.

Why that matters, that kind of privacy, goes to the heart of what it means to be a human being. Privacy is necessary for people to really be themselves. You don't do certain things when people are watching you. Janna Malamud Smith wrote about that in her book, Private Matters: In Defense of the Personal Life.
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/privacy99/lesson1/malamud/mal_index.html

She writes about what happens to people when it's absent. Solitude, which is one state of privacy, is so precious, some of those who were in prison camps in WWII mentioned how they craved it and how much they missed it.

Solitude and a feeling of not being watched or tracked is precious to me, and I feel it only in FOSS. Anything that subtracts from that wonderful experience is a move in the wrong direction.

Up to a point, some compromises can be worked through, but there is a tipping point beyond which all the volunteers disappear, and when you think about it, they are what FOSS is. And they won't be chumps, and they are interested only in a system that they trust. Market share
is not what the community is after first and foremost.

So that's the first thing to care about in all circumstances, I think, keeping that freedom. After that, you can think about all the other things, like protecting grannie and convenience. But it's vital not to bleed over the line just for convenience and other secondary things.

You didn't here, and in the end, I think the result is looking like something we can all be proud of.