Open-source etiquette. Is Mozilla wrong to use Firebird name?

A couple of days ago, the Mozilla group announced that they had renamed their open-source Phoenix web browser to Firebird. This of course upset the developers at the Firebird open-source database project who to put it mildly thought this was a breach of etiquette.

If you go to the Mozilla forums, the rhetoric is pro name change. They argue that the Firebird guys are a bunch of whiners who are making a mountain out of a mole hill. If they don't like it, tough. They say "Firebird" is a common name used in a variety of products. Nobody is going to confuse Firebird the car with Firebird the browser or Firebird the database. The Firebird database guys need to just get over it.

If you go to the Firebird newsgroup, they have a slightly opposite opinion. They think it was discourteous of the Mozilla group to have changed the name without asking for input from their group first. They argue that when a product like www.phpbb.com announces "Firebird" support this is ambiguous since a forum uses both browsers and databases. Mozilla wouldn't have tried to poach a name from Microsoft or Apache due to their clout, but felt the Firebird name could be appropriated with impunity. The manner in which this was done sets a bad precedent for the open-source community.

I use and like both products a lot. Phoenix is my primary browser. I'm using Firebird on my current database project. Since the people who use this forum do both web and database development, I thought it might be a good neutral spot to get an opinion about who's right and who's wrong? It's common to have companies like Microsoft and Sun exchanging barbs but I find it odd when open-source projects engage in this kind of activity.

What do you think?


http://firebird.sourceforge.net/

http://www.mozillazine.org/

If Mozilla was a car wax then it would be fine. However, since they are both software packages it will become confusing.

Eclipce

since Firebird is not a "so invisible" project, i think that Mozilla should get a new name other than that.
Just my 2 cents...

Mozilla should choose a new name.

IMO, 'Firebird' just sounds lame. Phoenix was better, but that isn't an option.

fwiw, what is wrong w/ just calling the thing 'Mozilla'?

Or, stick w/ the 'old browser (mosaic) + mythical lizard (godzilla)' name combos...

Hell, just call the thing Mothra (not a mythical lizard, but still). Or, the Tiamat Navigator. Whatever.

Not only is it bad ettiquette, it is a bad business decision.

Yes, I know that open source software is supposed to be above those nasty dog-eat-dog business considerations, but think about the practicality of this:

If Microsoft came out and named a new browser "Oracle", what do you think would be the result? Even if Oracle corporation never sued them for it (which they would), the general software-using public would soon become frustrated at Microsoft for introducing extra confusion in discussing IT matters. Imagine this conversation:

IT Manager: "I'm going to need some time to patch our systems today, because there is a new vulnerability in Oracle."

VP of Operations: "Another one!! How can they call their database system 'Unbreakable'?"

IT Manager: "No, it's not Oracle the DBMS; it's Oracle the web browser."

VP of Operations: "Well, whatever... that Oracle company better get their act together or we're going to go with Microsoft SQL Server."

IT Manager: "No, actually this is a Microsoft product. It's their web browser, not Oracle's DBMS."

VP of Operations: "What the #@!! ARE you talking about? Can't I ever get a straight answer from you IT guys?"

(IT Manager mentally begins plan to migrate company to Sybase and the Opera web browser)

In other words, for any product to be viable, what it does must be clearly understandable to the non-tech people involved, and the name of the product is usually the primary mental identifier people use to differentiate these things. Once you introduce name confusion, you start causing problems.

Let's get some more good posts in this thread, and then send the link off to the Mozilla people.

It's irresponsible, petty and stupid.

I use Mozilla daily and have barely glanced at Firebird, however I'm not going to let that shade my opinion of this decision.

I am posting a link to this discussion right now at the Mozillazine forum: http://www.mozillazine.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9133

Please, everyone... be polite and express sensible views. This is not a time for flaming.

I should mention that several of us here have been eagerly following all the great developments in Mozilla/XUL, and we are definitely appreciative of the project. We are just a little apprehensive about the wisdom of this name change.

It seems that after cycling through that thread the only ones with any valid arguments are the in support for Firebird DB team. It seems that the forum in general is injected with alot of kids by the arguments I am seeing.

This whole thing in general is a matter of pricipal. From a business side of things, it almost makes me sick that this is actually going on.

This is like someone going out and naming there company microsoft - gettting hit with a trademark infringment and then turning around and naming the company macromedia. Total stupidity IMHO...

Here is a good article -> http://news.com.com/2100-1032-997089.html?tag=fd_ots -> talking about this current situation.

It is highly irresponsible to 'take' the name of a product in a related category.

I've been reading through Asa's posts on the subject. He doesn't seem to quite get what the concern is and keeps insisting that noone will confuse a database system and a browser. That's true when viewing the two side by side - they are clearly heterogenous products. However, when referring to the general category of "web development" there is a great cause for alarm. The concern is that there IS overlap in many real-world situations where simply referring to "Firebird" is unnecessarily ambiguous. Consider a company that is deploying Firebird browsers to the workstations and the Firebird database on the backend. Unless they're careful to fully qualify it as: "the firebird DBMS" and "the firebird browser" there is cause for concern. Consider the seemingly innocuous statement from one IT person to another: "restart Firebird" (meaning the guy's brower). It could have disasterous consequences if misinterpeted as a command to restart the DBMS.

Also, what does this do for search results? Search for "firebird" and you could get either or. Again, you have to be careful to do full qualification.

I've been waiting to try out Phoenix, and I already have Firebird running on my system. How will system commands and such be handled? What happens if filenames wind up overlapping and clobbering each other? What happens when I try to search for Firebird on Google?

I will almost certainly use both applications and find myself in development situations where both are potentially being discussed or are available. Am I going to have to always watch myself when talking about them to make sure that I always fully qualify them or risk confusion?

Sorry Mozilla folks, it's not responsible and it's definitely not in the best interests of the people who will be using your products. Please, change the name.

jpenn and ctb have elaborated more than i care to. i agree with everything they said.

Alot of very good points have been brought up against this name change in the threads and articles ive read on the subject, but i have yet to read a single credible argument for adopting the name 'Firebird'. There is one con that I havnt seen considered yet.

I'm not a Firebird DB fanboy by any means, in fact i had never heard of it until yesterday. Contrary to that I've followed the Phoenix development for over a year. This decision, coupled with the smugness of their stance, just irks me in such a wrong way that i really have no motivation to support phoenix or mozilla at all anymore.

I propose in protest we collaborate to produce an open source DBMS and dub it "Mozilla". Hell, we already have a fully functional working codebase (Interbase), we just need to rename it to Mozilla.

This whole thing sounds like something Microsoft would pull.

Mozilla the Microsoft of Open Source

Eclipce

Better yet I say we hijack the Pheonix source and write a browser around that named Mozilla. Its all right there, we can ban together in protest by taking that source, adding a few things - dub it as the new Mozilla and offer it for download. Carry the links to the download in our sig's and do some propaganda damage accross the tubes...