User talk:The Raven's Apprentice/Userboxes/User Firefox

Archives
August 2005 – January 2006

image removal

I have removed the image as per the limitations of the rights given to use by Fair Use and by Wikipedia's guidelines at WP:FU. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 02:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought the image wasn't being used under fair use. Instead the {{mozilla}} reasoning was being used. -Scm83x 10:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

{{mozilla}} is the same thing as {{logo}} for our purposes. It's not a free image license, since it doesn't allow modification, so the only way our long-standing policies allow us to continue hosting the image is under free use. —Cryptic (talk) 16:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Unless, of course, we ignore one rule. —David Levy 16:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

{{mozilla}} is a claim of fair use. in this case it clearly does not apply.Geni 16:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not a claim of fair use. It's a claim of permission. Granted, this contradicts a Wikipedia policy, but I don't believe that this is the sort of situation that the authors had in mind. —David Levy 16:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is an application of IAR.--HereToHelp (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

No amount of use of IAR will get us off the hook, since copyright law cannot be ignored, even on here. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 21:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

trick it's not with permission in the sense we normaly use it on the other hand a really don't feel like cheacking x number of user pages to see if it is being used to promote firefox.Geni 21:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

We're not ignoring copyright law, we're ignoring Wikipedia guideline. Mozilla has given permission.--HereToHelp (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

For comercial use?Geni 23:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The quotes on {{Mozilla}} say nothing about commercial use.--HereToHelp (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

that is the problem. Digging through thier FAQ suggests that they allow it to be used under fair use or for non comercial reasons. Useing it on a wikipedia use page is only allowable if it is allowed to be used for comercial use.Geni 23:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

If that is the case, then the image needs to be deleted based on an email from Jimbo Wales in May of 2005, saying that all Non-commercial images are to be deleted. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 23:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo also endorsed WP:IAR —David Levy 04:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

We cannot use this logo on userpages, as per policy/license. Barring a good reason given otherwise, I will text-ify the template in about 24-hours (so if you want to do a replacement logo, now's the time!) --Improv 02:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Here are some good reasons:

1. This is the subject of an ongoing dispute that has resulted in page protection by an uninvolved party. It's inappropriate to make related edits or to unprotect the template at this juncture.

2. I've yet to read one logical reason to remove the image, other than "because the rules say so." If you or someone else can cite actual harm that otherwise will result, this will change matters.

3. Thus far, the {{mozilla}} template's current deletion debate has drawn more than twice as many "keep" votes as delete votes (including the nominator). Among those voting "keep" is Theresa Knott, a member of Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee. —David Levy 04:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry, that level of indentation was getting ridiculous. [ This page went further towards the end--HereToHelp (talk)] In response, it is appropriate to remove the image because the image is contrary to very clear policy, with no interpretation necessary. I am not talking about deleting the template, which Kelly Martin and Tony Sidaway have been involved in -- that involves some judgement as to the meaning of different policies. The reason to delete the image is simple, and it is a licensing issue:
  1. We cannot accept the terms on the firefox icon because they conflict with our policies on what kinds of licenses we can accept. We cannot accept either specific grants of use to Wikipedia nor usage that prohibits commercial usage
  2. We therefore are bypassing the license by claiming fair use on the images
  3. Fair use only gives us a certain amount of leeway in how we can use the image. This leeway allows us to use the image for articles, but not for user pages. Take a look at Wikipedia:Fair_use for the precise details.
• Let's keep the discussion moving -- I'll leave the template be so long as we're still making meaningful progress on the topic. This is, however, a matter of law/core policy, so a vote is inappropriate, and it is possible there may be legal reprecussions for the project, so it's not in our interest to ignore this for long. --Improv 06:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not talking about deleting the template, which Kelly Martin and Tony Sidaway have been involved in -- that involves some judgement as to the meaning of different policies.

To be clear, the deletion debate to which I referred concerns the {{mozilla}} template — the one with which the images in question are tagged specifically for this purpose.

We cannot accept the terms on the firefox icon because they conflict with our policies on what kinds of licenses we can accept. We cannot accept either specific grants of use to Wikipedia nor usage that prohibits commercial usage

Sure we can, simply by ignoring the rules (in favor of common sense). The rules usually should be followed, but not purely for the sake of following them. I honestly believe that this sort of situation was not what the authors of said rules had in mind.

We therefore are bypassing the license by claiming fair use on the images

No, we aren't. This is not fair use, so that would violate copyright. We're bypassing the Wikipedia policy against images used by permission, but no law is being broken.

This is, however, a matter of law/core policy, so a vote is inappropriate, and it is possible there may be legal reprecussions for the project, so it's not in our interest to ignore this for long.

By all means, please cite these potential legal repercussions. —David Levy 07:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

please show exactly where we have permission to use these images in a comercial manner. Furthermore please show where we have permission to allow reusers to do the same.Geni 12:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

David, I normally am made a bit queasy about IAR, as, I think, most people on the project are. It can be made to justify anything, and in cases where it is taken way too far leads to a kind of attitude that is extremely off-putting to others on the project. Kelly Martin, for example, has indicated that she doesn't even bother reading policy because she's acting in the best interests of Wikipedia. While I trust her to actually do so, in the end when enough people do that it leads to horrible chaos when disagreements happen as to what those best interests are. An entire community of that would be very disruptive. At the same time, there are certain areas where normal concerns for due process cannot hold - when dealing with licensing issues or other legal affairs or core tenets of the project, there is considerably less role for discussion or consensus. If, for example, right after a major terrorist attack, people had a massive vote to insert phrases like "X is a shithead" into the article of the person believed to be behind the attack, it would still not be considered encyclopedic, even if the masses went that way, and should be deleted and locked by any admin. Likewise, no matter what the community thinks, if something puts the project in legal jeopardy, we cannot do it. Finally, if people suddenly decide that it'd be keen to start using user pages as personal webpages or a BLOG, we should not permit that either, even if all of livejournal showed up on our doorstep and wanted to vote on it, overwhelming our normal consensus mechanism. I suppose my point is that I am not trying to be a jerk, nor to even be particularly questionable. This is a legal issue, and it's important to get it right. Moving back to specific objections:

As I understand, you're suggesting that we not use "fair use" licensing, instead using the images under the offered noncommercial license offered by the Mozilla foundation. This avoids the worries about legal appropriateness of fair use for userspace. Unfortunately, it has ill effects for things that have been considered priorities by the foundation that have decided how our license policy works. There is a concern for freedom -- the wikipedia project's data dumps is, in theory, supposed to be loadable and usable by anyone for any purpose, commercial or not. We've been doing our best to make a good faith effort (legally speaking) to keep that true, and things like this fly in the face of that. Noncommercial licenses could cause Wikipedia mirrors to need to be taken down by a single letter from someone who makes any specially licensed content, and that makes our project a lot less useful. Consider also that companies are starting to embed Wikipedia into handheld devices for portable use. If we're not careful about licenses, that will come back to bite them, preventing such projects from bearing fruit. Allowing restricted-use licenses was also decided to not be in the spirit of the GFDL nor aiming for the kinds of liberties that we hope to see in the project. Note finally that this license is decided policy, so if you want to see that policy change, go over there and try to start something to rework it. I believe Jimbo has declared by fiat some large aspects of the policy, so changing this may not be permitted, but you can give it a shot and if you win, you might have your way on this issue. Until then, I don't think IAR permits you to ignore those rules, especially on a topic like licensing that has broader implications for the project. To be safe, we should remove the image, and you can add it back later if policy is changed to permit it. --Improv 15:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Any handheld reference like the one you mentioned would not include userpages. Mozilla has allowed us to use this. I see the dangers of described by the "one exception leads to the next" argument, but I disagree. More exceptions should be made if the image has been released under copyright similar to Mozilla's. The facxt of the matter is that you can't paint with one brush.--HereToHelp (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, we have decided their license is not permitted by general policy. I intend to change the template to use the LGPL image sometime later today unless you have anything else to say.--Improv 14:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

David, I normally am made a bit queasy about IAR, as, I think, most people on the project are. It can be made to justify anything, and in cases where it is taken way too far leads to a kind of attitude that is extremely off-putting to others on the project.

I seldom invoke WP:IAR. As I said, the rules should be followed when they make sense.

Likewise, no matter what the community thinks, if something puts the project in legal jeopardy, we cannot do it.

I agree. Please explain how using Mozilla's images in this context puts the project in legal jeopardy.

There is a concern for freedom -- the wikipedia project's data dumps is, in theory, supposed to be loadable and usable by anyone for any purpose, commercial or not. We've been doing our best to make a good faith effort (legally speaking) to keep that true, and things like this fly in the face of that. Noncommercial licenses could cause Wikipedia mirrors to need to be taken down by a single letter from someone who makes any specially licensed content, and that makes our project a lot less useful. Consider also that companies are starting to embed Wikipedia into handheld devices for portable use. If we're not careful about licenses, that will come back to bite them, preventing such projects from bearing fruit.

This template is intended for use on user pages. It has no bearing on the encyclopedia proper.

Allowing restricted-use licenses was also decided to not be in the spirit of the GFDL nor aiming for the kinds of liberties that we hope to see in the project.

Bureaucratically forbidding the harmless use of an image is not in the spirit of the product.

Note finally that this license is decided policy, so if you want to see that policy change, go over there and try to start something to rework it. I believe Jimbo has declared by fiat some large aspects of the policy, so changing this may not be permitted, but you can give it a shot and if you win, you might have your way on this issue.

Jimbo endorsed WP:IAR.

Until then, I don't think IAR permits you to ignore those rules, especially on a topic like licensing that has broader implications for the project.

I'm still waiting for someone to cite these "broader implications." —David Levy 23:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

As a simple request, could we please wait for a consensus before changing the logo on the template? It's changing every other day, which is annoying, and is getting progressively weirder. Thanks. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 07:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Approval voting

I can go though the history to grab all used images (and non-image), so that we can do some approval voting, but I won't count them. Is there someone interested in doing that? ≈ Ekevu ^talk _contrib 14:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Please wait a short while. I'm still attempting to determine the copyright status of this image. If it's available under an open license, the derivative icon that I assembled is a candidate. I managed to find the creator's (hopefully current) e-mail address, and I sent an inquiry yesterday. —David Levy 17:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I received a reply; the creator has agreed to distribute the icon under the GNU GPL (one of the three licenses under which the Mozilla globe icon is available). I've added the composite image for now, but feel free to hold a vote. Thanks for waiting! —David Levy 02:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

What about

The variation used with the firefox package shipped with Ubuntu Linux [1]? Unfortunately, I'm not absolutely sure about the license/copyright status - I think it's GFDL, but I could be wrong. Still, it *might* be a feasible alternative. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 02:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I have a horible feeling we would be running into the GFDL/GPL issue and a really don't want to go there.Geni 03:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The globe is released under a tri-license (MPL/GPL/LGPL), it's only the fox that is protected. _→AzaToth 15:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

If this is true, and if we can verify this with the Mozilla foundation (we don't want to inherit sloppy license use), this would be an admirable solution to this specific issue. It doesn't solve the general problem of people not honouring license policy/licenses themselves, but it at least would make things better on this particular point. If someone can drop a note to the foundation and verify the license, we can get this changed over pretty quickly. --Improv 16:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

From http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/faq.html:

The Mozilla trademarks include, among others, the names Mozilla®, mozilla.org®, Firefox®, Thunderbird™, Bugzilla™, Camino™, Sunbird™ and Seamonkey™, as well as the Mozilla logo, Firefox logo, Thunderbird logo and the red lizard logo.
The default logos in CVS which are built into Firefox and Thunderbird by default (i.e. the globe without the fox, and the original blue bird) are explicitly not protected as Mozilla trademarks. The files themselves are available under the mozilla.org tri-license; you can do anything you like with them under those terms.
(The cute green dinosaur is not a Mozilla Foundation trademark either; its legal status is unclear, and we are moving away from using it.)

Excellent. Is this a solution that everyone is ok with? If so, this matter can be closed. --Improv 18:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

(Once we implement, of course) --Improv 19:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I have implemented the change. --Improv 19:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

As I indicated in the first place, I believe that an unofficial logo is an acceptable substitute. Others, however disagreed, and I still see no logical reason why the official logo cannot be used. —David Levy 23:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

What a waste of time

"This page is 100 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size." Perhaps people should go and find something more useful to do. the wub "?!" 15:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Archiving, anyone? because it's now 106.--HereToHelp (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Archived. - Ekevu (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Text Logo

Does anyone know the font used by the logo on Mozilla's webpage? They cannot copyright the font, and we could use that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Schwarzm (talk • contribs) 19:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC).

How about this template? The colors went a bit dark when I uploaded it, but otherwise it's ok.

This user contributes using Mozilla Firefox.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Schwarzm (talk • contribs) 03:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC).

That doesn't meet Wikipedia's userbox style conventions. —David Levy 23:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, what about this?

This user contributes using Mozilla Firefox.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Schwarzm (talk • contribs) 19:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC).

That looks fine to me. :-) —David Levy 19:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I like it. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 19:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I prefer some unofficial logo rather than plain text or an image that looks like so. But I'll bring up a vote soon, with all non-{{copyvio}} options such as yours (as soon as I get an ok from David Levy on the e-mail he mentioned on a discussion above), so please don't change the official template for now. ≈ Ekevu ^talk _contrib 20:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Good luck with the image thing, I did one above but it didn't seem to go anywhere, and seemed to be disregarded. Ian¹³_ID:540053 20:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah... Maybe it'll do better now that the flamewars are off. That's what I'm counting on anyway. ≈ Ekevu ^talk _contrib 13:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

A note about the first statement in this category Fonts can actually be covered by a leagal protection I think its usually a trademark but im not possitiveShimonnyman 18:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Template version straw poll

Before we get into an edit war, can we please put the two different firefox template styles to a vote? I've taken some time and creativity to come up with an icon to be used for this, so could we make sure the community here knows what template they want to use? --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 04:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Please note that the colors also change. ≈ Ekevu ^talk _contrib 14:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• 
  Version 1
• 
  Version 2
• 
  Text-like version

Version 1

Nominated 04:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC).

1. Version 1 --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 04:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Version 1 -- Glennnnn 09:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Version 2

Nominated 04:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC).

1. Version 2, per[2], if those are the only choices we have. — TheKMan^talk 07:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

   Version 2. More aesthetic, IMHO. ≈ Ekevu ^talk _contrib 14:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

2. Version 2 (my compilation). I support Leon's decision to hold a straw poll, but I don't understand why this required reverting to his icon (especially given the fact that it displays improperly for most users). —David Levy 14:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

   Most of the PNG images which are on userboxes look wrong in IE6. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 06:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

   Version 2. Ian¹³_ID:540053 16:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

3. Version 2. — Ian Moody ^(talk) 16:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

   V2. —Nightstallion (?) 20:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

   Version 2. jareha 22:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess the majority has spoken. When I made the icon, I was thinking detailed and flashy (sort of like this icon, but the other one's fine as well. It's simplistic and gives the same visual cue as the original Fx icon. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 06:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Version 3

A new improved version, yet to be designed by someone with the skills. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 07:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Text-like Version

Nominated 16:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC).

This user contributes using Mozilla Firefox.

You know, If one design doesn't win and people really want it, they can always just make an alternative template at Template:User browser:Firefox2.-- Max 16:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, your example looks like text but isn't text. :) Sencody, yes, that has happened already. See Template:User browser:Firefox text. ≈ Ekevu (♥, ★) 20:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Text version

Nominated 20:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC).

fox	This user contributes using Mozilla Firefox.

1. I also support this one. ≈ Ekevu (♥, ★) 20:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

LGPL from nuvola

Nominated 16:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC).

1. ≈ Ekevu (♥, ★) 16:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
2. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Much better. —Nightstallion (?) 20:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Support. Dunno if this infringes on mozilla's trademark or not, but they can take it up with nuvola if they have an issue. -Fadookie ^{Talk | contrib} 05:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Support. jareha 17:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

LGPL image

I clearly should have checked the talk page (I hadn't realized this was debated this recently), but uh.. Nuvola has an LGPL icon that is pretty damn close to the one used by Mozilla. I've uploaded it as Image:Firefox.svg (the filename it had in the archive, for those keeping track of such things). I already changed the template to use it (because I did recall the issue with fair-use discussed before, and since this is an LGPL image, it shouldn't have any fair-use issues), however, if there's some problem with it, please feel free to revert and discuss here. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank jebus, you the man Cole! Hopefully this fiasco is over. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I sure agree! :) But I added this to the pool for the sake of boureaucracy. ≈ Ekevu (♥, ★) 16:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Still dangerous to use a copyrighted logo, thought the image is LGPL-ed. commons:Image:Nuvola Firefox icon.png is now voted for deletion as well. --minghong 04:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

This particular image is not copyrighted, it's been released under the LGPL. The logo itself is trademarked, but that's a different matter altogether. I've also voted keep on commons, and will vote keep here as well if an attempt is made to delete it. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the responses in commons explain it all: "you can't LGPL a copyrighted logo" and "you can't put the Mozilla logo on anything that you produce commercially". --minghong 07:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Are we producing Wikipedia comercially? • Ekevu • ♥ • ★ 12:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

That license has changed. See Mozilla Foundation's new trademark policy; it now allows commercial use, except anything that competes with Mozilla Store merchandise. It also allows some derivative works. Seahen 19:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Where on that page is this indicated? I see only only reference to commercial use:

"You can't put the Mozilla logo on anything that you produce commercially -- at least not without receiving Mozilla's permission."

—David Levy 19:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

IE safe

Is the irony lost on anyone else that we're having the SVG (which gets translated into a 24-bit alpha blended PNG by MediaWiki) converted to a non-transparent PNG on the grounds that it's "IE safe" on a Firefox userbox? =) —Locke Cole • t • c 05:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Definitely wasn't lost on me. jareha 05:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for stating out what everyone was thinking! ;) • Ekevu • ♥ • ★ 16:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Image Link

I am removing the firefox link from the template. I have instead made the image the clickable eg, you click the Firefox Logo to go to the article as it's natural to do for a web user. Few people know that this could be done and I ask that it be kept like this for some time, just so that people realize it is possible. Hopefuly we'll have most userbox images will be linked eventually (or the Developers will bring us that functionality). —This user has left wikipedia 22:11 2006-01-26

Personally, I think this is against the common method for doing userboxes, and should be reverted. After all, this was done without consensus. If anyone agrees, be bold and change it back. — Scm83x ^talk 22:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand images to be linked to their page to satisfy GFDL requirments, and credit the contributer. Ian¹³_ID:540053 22:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh yea, and what about images that areused on articles, this hard redirect makes finding image info alittle hard as the actuctal editis to the image page. Ian¹³_ID:540053 22:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, by any means put it back. I was hoping people would notice this and maybe learn something and maybe influence other userboxes. GFDL does not specify a direct link, image article can still be reached. Remeber to add #redirect only to images specifically uploaded for userbox use. You can save a downsampled version of the image and then reupload it under a separate name. —This user has left wikipedia 22:32 2006-01-26

I think its mainly because its a image->article. If it was possible for the image insertation to be linked, that would be better providing policy allows it. Ian¹³_ID:540053 22:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted the redirect at Image:Nuvola Firefox icon.png, if anything because it confused me. And I consider myself very comfortable with Wikipedia. jareha 23:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Straw Poll

Would you prefer the Firefox icon take you to the Mozilla Firefox page or to the Image description page? Below is an example of what I was proposing (click the image). Some people find such a redirect harmful. I see them as an extension of web-expectations.

Mozilla_Firefox

This user contributes using Mozilla Firefox.

Agree, userbox images should link to the article, they have no other use

1. This user has left wikipedia 23:52 2006-01-26 ~ Per nominator, gotta do it although m:Polls are evil

Disagree, userbox images should link to the Image Description

1. jareha — I found the redirect harmful. The general Wikipedia user (e.g. myself) would expect an Image: page, not an article — which could've been found by clicking the Mozilla Firefox link in said userbox. 23:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ - Per above-- 05:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Scm83x ^talk 05:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC). I thought we already decided this. I agree with jareha. Remember that userboxes are generally only seen by editors, who expect certain things to happen when they click on certain links.
4. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC) - I can see the reason why this might be cool to try out, but I think it's generally a bad idea for legal and consistancy reasons.
5. LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 08:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC) per above.
6. • Ekevu • ♥ • ★ 17:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC) per Scm83x.
7. Ian13/talk 18:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Use of real logo is permitted, this modified logo shouldn't be used

According to the Mozilla Foundation, images of their copyrighted logo may be used by nonprofit websites like Wikipedia under promotional permission granted at [3]. More details on the specifics of using the logo at [[4]].

The big thing the Mozilla Foundation will not allow, though, is to modify their copyrighted logo as this template's image has done. To quote, "There are two additional broad categories of things you can't do with Mozilla's logos. The first is to produce modified versions of them. A modified logo also would raise the possibility of consumer confusion, thus violating Mozilla's trademarks rights, too (remember the overarching requirement that any use of a Mozilla trademark be non-confusing?)."[5]

To correct this situation, I propose we upload the correct version in place of this image (see http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/identity-guidelines/firefox.html for the correct version to use). If people are opposed to doing this, then that leaves us with the choice of doing without any image at all, since a modified image is specifically not allowed. --Alabamaboy 18:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I also realize using this image has been discussed at length several times, and that the issue is Wikipedia policy instead of Mozilla's (which has stated that Wikipedia can use their logo in user boxes). However, I think editors have approached this issue from the wrong position because Wikipedia does allow use of promotional copyright material. The big issue, though, is that Mozilla specifically forbids modifying their logo, which is what has been done here.--Alabamaboy 18:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the logo rules only apply to their trademark, which is the logo they're using for official builds. The one that's currently being used for the infobox is a modded unofficial deer park logo, which is tri-licensed. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 19:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The image source materials say, "Derived from a non-trademarked, tri-licensed Mozilla globe icon and GNU GPL icon by Karabe." It doesn't matter where the image was derived from, what matters is that the image now closely resembles the main Firefox logo. As a result, it violates Mozilla's trademarks rights. This is specifically not allowed and the image should be deleted. However, as said, we could use the main Firefox logo under a promotional license which Wikipedia allows. --Alabamaboy 19:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The images for deletion page is right there. Be bold! However, you'll probably need to take it to Wikimedia Commons' deletion page as well. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 10:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

To continue on my point, this trademark violation is similar to what McDonald's does when it sues any restaurant using a big M or Mc in their name. While this modified image did skirt Wikipedia's copyright issues with the logo (although, as I've said, Mozilla does allow orgs like Wikipedia to use their logo) we've run smack into a major trademark violation.--Alabamaboy 19:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

It has been a lasting problem with this template. But the main reason why we can't use the FF icon, knowing well that we can, is because of other sites being able to take all the content from this site and put it on theirs (AFAIK). Although WP can put the logo, can Answers.com, or Whahoocyclopedia (if it exists)?

In case we can't use that icon, how about the other logos which are posted above? And what about the other browser related infoboxes? {{User browser:Opera}} has a cursive red "O", while the trademark of Opera is a serif red "O", or even {{User browser:Netscape}} which uses a serif "N" over a green and black background. The only difference between that one and the actual classic netscape icon is the line is straight. Since you brought up McDonalds, what about its template? It shows a public domain photograph of a McDonalds restraunt, with three McDonald's arches. Maybe the Foundation needs to create a policy on trademarks as well as copyrights. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 10:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, which probably ain't much, I made this logo for my own use. Herostratus 23:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why the logo was removed... but I don't like the current one. So, I'm gonna use yours, Herostratus. With your permission, of course. Very nice. =)--Lobizón 17:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Changing the image

I have found a public domain version of the firefox logo. The image has been uploaded to commons as Image:Firefox logo.png. This is how the box looks now:

This user contributes using Mozilla Firefox.

Please tell me what you think. Shardsofmetal [ Talk • Contribs ] 04:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Update: The image was recommended for deletion at commons, because Image:Firefox.svg already exists, and is better. Since that image is copyrighted, I thought I'd upload a public domain version of the Firefox logo. Also, since Firefox.svg is copyrighted, it also happens to be up for deletion, invalidating the basis for Firefox logo.png's recommended deletion. If you wish to keep the image (or have it deleted for that manner), you may vote here. Thanks, Shardsofmetal [ Talk • Contribs ] 02:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

This version of the logo has now been deleted as a derivative work of a non-free logo. --Kjetil_r 17:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion would be the logo. /Lokal_Profil 12:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Fox as in Fox Broadcasting?

The characters "FOX" is normally associated with a certain reactionary corporation, not Firefox. Xiner 13:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• I agree to this.

--Meno25 04:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The logo

Could there be a new logo?

--Meno25 14:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with the current one? —ptk✰fgs 05:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Cat sup

I've added category suppression capability to the userbox, for those who don't like the user categories. Octane ^{[improve me]} 22.11.07 0527 (UTC)

Image

Years ago, there was confusion on the copyright status of the Firefox logo. The bits that are shipped with Firefox are now clearly freely licensed under a MPL/GPL/LGPL tri-license. Back when the logo was used via fair use on Wikipedia, it couldn't be used on user pages. But it is now clearly freely licensed copyright-wise.

The trademark issue is separate. I don't see any policy about using trademarked images on user pages. --Pmsyyz (talk) 18:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)