OPEN-SOURCE SOFTWARE
this, allowing for a measured remedy to be administered in response. Direct communication with the infringer can provide an amicable resolution, says Anderson. Domain name dispute procedures and cease and desist letters have their place, but sometimes a response must go further. He says: “Te most serious cases may require injunctive relief, [particularly] those that intentionally trade off the brand and use deceptive practices to defraud users.”
Te technology that makes up Mozilla’s products is protected in a way that allows it to develop without the constraints of traditional ownership. Microsoſt’s Internet Explorer may be freely available, but its use is governed by a strict licence that prohibits the modification or distribution of the soſtware. Tis, Mozilla argues, is restrictive to the advancement of the technology when compared with the ‘sharing’ principle that governs open-source soſtware.
Mozilla licenses its soſtware under the Mozilla Public License. It grants a global, royalty-free, non-exclusive licence to both users and third- party developers.
Anderson says: “We base all our decisions on the user. Tis means there is no commercial objective
that compromises the primacy of the user. We use an open and transparent development model based on participation that is different from any of the browser competitors who develop in a closed environment.”
Contributors have a way of adding to something bigger than themselves, says Anderson, allowing their work to touch hundreds of millions of users. A relationship like this is traditionally underwritten by proprietary rights, but Mozilla leans on trust.
Anderson says: “My view is that those that want to act in ways that are unlawful will find a way, regardless of the rules or relevant legal framework. We optimise for, and operate upon, the dominant assumption of compliance, rather than the exception.”
Tird-party developers are not leſt entirely to their own devices. Te distributed authority model, as Anderson calls it, involves a development and review process that is rigorously disciplined. Tis can help to keep Mozilla soſtware developments as innovative as possible.
Anderson says: “A good example are super reviewers, who are volunteers who have code review authority based on trust and respect
earned from their actions over time. As long as the aims and activities remain relevant, and people get value from their efforts, we have great faith that this model will continue to unleash the innovative capacity of developers and contributors around the world.”
Mozilla’s products are not entirely free. Tey cost the time of the many people who develop the soſtware. Collaboration is possible because of charitable contributions and advocates of open- source soſtware, but it also relies on partnerships like Mozilla’s agreement with Google. Mozilla makes great efforts to put the user first and not let commercial partnerships compromise its short and long-term aims. To make up for these costs, Mozilla ensures that the quality of the products bearing its name remains intact. A trademark policy that is based on trust might seem naive—infringement would be far too easy—but it also seems to have its advantages. Mozilla’s collaborators could infringe, and some probably do, but they could also co-operate. Without this co-operation, Mozilla’s Firefox browser would not be one of the most popular browsers on the web.
www.mozilla.org/foundation/
www.worldipreview.com
World Intellectual Property Review September/October 2010
15
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112