Kerz has done a plain Mozilla splash screen (Mozilla, in Revolution font, with a URL and a copyright statement), which has no image rights issues. We need to check it in, replacing the green lizard. Among other things, the plainness will encourage Mozilla distributors to provide a splash of their own. It is possible that this bug will receive a certain amount of attention. Before you comment here, listen carefully: This is not bug 32218. There will be no discussion of which of the many available splash screens is "best". Please do not attach other screens to this bug, or comment with URL locations. This screen is what we are having. It remains possible to install your own splash screen if you are the sort of person who has too much time and needs to get out more. However, note that this bug does not preclude email@example.com deciding to change the splash screen in the future. Call it benevolent dictatorship :-) Gerv
I'll attach the splashes as soon as I've worked out why the new one is 5x bigger than the old as a BMP, even though it's simpler. CCing mkaply for info, as he controls the OS/2 splash, and may want to change it in response. Gerv
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla1.3final
Gerv, that's probably because of the color depth. Anyway, why not just disable the splash screen by default? Who wants a splash screen anyway?
Target Milestone: mozilla1.3final → ---
I don't think we yet start up quick enough to not have a splash. Mozilla distributors are free to disable it if they so choose. But, as long as there's one in the tree, it's going to be this one. Gerv
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Since the Mozilla logo is anti-aliased, the text at the bottom should too. Here's a slightly modified version (wich LZW compression to make it only 8K small!)
Since the Mozilla logo is anti-aliased, the text at the bottom should too. Here's a slightly modified version (with LZW compression to make it only 8K small!)
Sorry, did not intend to submit that one twice.
I fixed the file size on my original. I don't want antialiased text at the bottom, it's much too small for it.
Also, I'm not sure if the build will support the image being compressed. If not, I have one that's not compressed, and only 100k. (The current one being 50kb roughly is because it's been terribly dithered). jason
Can we leave the black area at the bottom in anticipation of putting startup information there? My understanding is that the hooks are there to do it and Mac already does.
Can there be a pixel of space between the characters in the URL? The tt isn't too hard to make out but what I'm guessing is supposed to be /www. in the last attachment is just a blob.
I find the text more readable when anti-aliased despite the small size, but maybe that's just me. Why is the "c" in "copyright" small? That looks a bit unproffesional I think.
Asa and I decided to made it small because it looked bad being the only uppercase letter on the whole image.
This one has lighter anti-aliasing, a small "c" and is not LZW compressed. Can you really say the aliased version looks better?
Didn't get the dimensions right the first time, here's the real second attempt.
Attachment #115103 - Attachment is obsolete: true
I can live with that, it'd be nice to make it a bit more clear (asa needs glasses, so fuzzy stuff bothers him :-D), but for now that's fine.
> My understanding is that the hooks are there to do it and Mac already does. Asa said MacOS X doesn't do this, and in several years, no-one has ever bothered implementing it for other platforms than Mac OS 9 (now defunct), so it's not worth it. > Can there be a pixel of space between the characters in the URL? I spaced it out a little based on Kerz' original, but a spaced-out WWW looks a bit odd. The anti-aliased second attempt is OK, but the "r" in .org looks too short. If anyone does a compressed version, make sure they use a legally licensed LZW compressor. Gerv
OK, we're branched for 1.3 so this will need to be landed on the trunk and on the branch. Let's get this in sooner rather than later. Thanks.
I'll take that as an approval, then :-) I could swear I set "blocking1.3?" but it's not set now. Hmm. Lack of approval was why I wasn't checking in; I wish we'd managed to sort this out before branching. /me goes away and pulls another tree. Gerv
The splash screen can be RLE Compressed, and as a matter of fact the current splash.bmp _is_ RLE comrpessed.
Can someone clarify the legal issues with the previous splash (green lizard) am i not allowed to use this for a commercial product?
This attachment contains a PNG formatted image (size issue), which IMO has better anti-aliased text and makes it less fluffy for Asa. I've also changed the copyright text a bit to the common way of displaying it.
Here is a version of the splash screen using a pixel font. This removes the need for anti-aliasing. Use it or ignore it, I'm fine either way. :-) It's ~9KB big and uses RLE compression.
Gerv said: > This is not bug 32218. There will be no discussion of which of the many > available splash screens is "best". Please do not attach other screens to > this bug, or comment with URL locations. This screen is what we are having. Everyone else said (paraphrased): > Well, if we can't attach new splash screens, we're damn well going to attach > modified versions of Kerz's plain one!
Comment 23: This AA is definitely better than mine, but the font is more boring. I used Tahoma in PS6, what are you using? I also think that it looks more balanced with the shorter copyright notice, since it's roughly the same width as the URL to mozilla.org A though: Wouldn't it look better with a centered text displaying only: "Copyright (c) 1998-2003 mozilla.org" (With or without a capital "c"...)
Any chance you can use an en dash (U+2013) in the copyright year range, rather than a hyphen? Typographically nicer.
Comment 26: I used the boring Arial fonts at 8px hence the boring ;) I agree that the left copyright notice is too long and your thought of centering the bit is good. (url address isn't really necessary is it?) The (C) or (c) might be interesting and clearer for people. Comment 27: You mean the "¦" symbol? Comment 25: We are calling an uprise against Gerv's dictatorship! For the free lands of Middle Earth! (This is a joke and in no way a call for more people to object and flood this bug).
Creating attachment or url is bad, I know, just hoping Gerv's divine judgement might be reconsidered after viewing the image. Included changes are: the dash (U+2013), the change to Tahoma font, centering (without url), more legal copyright notices. Will direct furter splashes to the according bug.
Stop right now. If anyone attaches another splash without being asked to do so, I'm going to pull your bugzilla permissions to do so. This isn't a contest, we have settled on a design, font, and look.
I am OK with the new plain Mozilla splash except the orange background. Does it have to be orange? It just doesn't seem to be Mozilla's color how about red.
What Kerz said. > Does it have to be orange? This is not bug 32218. Gerv
I tried - only out of interest - how big the BMP might get if RLE is used (and that's what we can use, I believe). I used attachment 115106 [details] - which kerz has said is good for now in Comment #17 and which is 101 KB currently, and got it down to 8.5 KB using RLE (made with the GIMP). I think we should really use the RLE version - if it's faster to load, of course. It would be bad if we'd just minimize the size but don't speed up loading time as well with the change... If you want the version, I still have it around - but I won't attach unless it's really requested (by kerz or Gerv).
Re commen #32: even if this is not bug 32218, asking why the color has been deliberately chosen not to match with either of the default themes' color, or the "symbolic" colors of Mozilla is a valid question IMO. Yes, you can dictate the splashscreen and put anything you want, but it seems that a minimal amount of logic and/or taste would not harm. Except you find your pleasure in making a bad thing worse, of course.
> why the color has been deliberately chosen not to match with either of the > default themes' color, or the "symbolic" colors of Mozilla Look at the background of colour of the splash screen; look at the background colour of http://www.mozilla.org/banners/. It's not a coincidence. > Except you find your pleasure in making a bad thing worse, of course. It could have been worse: http://www.mozillazine.org/jason/images/splash/mozilla-mangelo.gif The point of this bug is not to add a beautiful splash screen, it's to remove Green Mozilla. Deal with it.
/me contemplates whether to sue over "Look & Feel", popular in the 1990's, or the now-more-popular DMCA angle... http://mods.mozillanews.org/splashes/ultrablanksplash.png (No, this isn't attaching a splash, just a joke... PS: This bug's URL has been _removed_ from a comment post, and might do well with being marked CONF until fixed, to avoid 32218-itis.)
This is it. Approved by Asa. Let's get an XPM of it and get it checked in.
Comment on attachment 115302 [details] Final Revision OK. reviewed and approved. someone please land this thing. thanks.
uh, I'm a bad guy, I'm doing an attachment here... well, this is exactly the image in "final revision", saved to xpm (with GIMP), so that it can be checked in for *nix. I just hope I won't get kicked out of my bugzilla rights now ;-)
Final revision, and my XPM conversion (I do have a copy of the GIMP, you know :-) checked in to trunk. I'll check it in to 1.3 as soon as I can get the tree to build. Gerv
you should wait for 1.3 to open for checkins.
i'm not sure how relevant this is, but does mozilla.org actually own the copyright to mozilla (as the new splash claims)? the information in "about:" seems to indicate otherwise, especially since i'm sure there are contributors who are not members of mozilla.org. and does the triple license come into play as well? stupid technicalities, admittedly, but people have been executed over less.
um, i think ratman's right. did someone actually get legal to sign off on this? looking at the image it sure looks like it's saying mozilla and not the image is copyright mozilla.org, which isn't the case.
"Mozilla" was trademarked with the US Patent and Trademark Office by Netscape Corp. on July 7, 1995. Since mozilla.org is legally part of Netscape, this trademark should cover them as well. http://tess.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=login&p_lang=english&p_d=trmk -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Word Mark MOZILLA Translations The mark is a coined term and has no foreign meaning. Goods and Services IC 014. US 002 027 028 050. G & S: jewelry IC 016. US 002 005 022 023 029 037 038 050. G & S: books, magazines and newsletters in the field of computers, computer networks and computer software IC 021. US 002 013 023 029 030 033 040 050. G & S: mugs, water bottles and sport bottles sold empty IC 025. US 022 039. G & S: clothing, namely, hats, shirts, sweatshirts IC 028. US 022 023 038 050. G & S: toys and sporting goods, namely, golf balls, plush toys, and board games Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING Serial Number 74698316 Filing Date July 7, 1995 Filed ITU FILED AS ITU Published for Opposition February 4, 1997 Owner (APPLICANT) Netscape Communications Corporation CORPORATION DELAWARE 501 East Middlefield Road Mountain View CALIFORNIA 94043 Attorney of Record Andrew P. Bridges Type of Mark TRADEMARK Register PRINCIPAL Live/Dead Indicator LIVE
Type of Mark TRADEMARK that would be Mozilla(tm). We're talking about something else. the question is what does (c)mozilla.org reference. the conclusion that ratman and I reached is that it references the entire software.
Ah yes, that would be misguided. Thanks for clearing it up!
I accept that this is the design that the powers-that-be have chosen to go for and I certainly don't want to turn this into another 32218, but this splash screen still needs work. There is still no black box down the bottom as mentioned in comment 11, which is going to cause problems with the Mac build. Then of course there is the issue with if mozilla.org holds the copyright to Mozilla itself - I guess what I'm trying to say is don't check it in as it is.
> There is still no black box down the bottom as > mentioned in comment 11, which is going to cause problems with the Mac build. See comment #18. Gerv
Sorry for the spam - guess I should have read more closely. On the note of copyright, I notice that the about: page says this: Copyright © 1998-2003 by Contributors to the Mozilla codebase under the Mozilla Public License and Netscape Public License. All Rights Reserved. Could be a bit wordy for the splash screen though...
Just want to bring over a question from some newsgroup: is it legally required to list the years (1998-2003)? They have to be changed if this splash stays in for a longer time and make the text longer where much text is not needed. (Just want to make sure that you are aware of this question since I see no indication that somebody thought of it here)
Legally you do not have to put any "copyright" message at all. A work is automatically copyright its author. The copyright message is just for information so that people know the work is not in public domain. You also do no longer need to put any (c) there. Just "copyright" is enough. See http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html for detailed information.
The splash screen seems to be broken in 2002022404 / XP. It doesn't come up at all (as if I'd used the -nosplash switch). Further, various resource utilities show a "broken / non-existent" image embedded in the Mozilla EXE.
Confirming Comment 52 Gerv: Something must be wrong with this new splashscreen, now there doesn't show up any splashscreen anymore.
*** Bug 194745 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Also no splash screen in the QT builds (as reported in bug 194745).
Jason: the qt issue is entirely separate.
I've tested around a bit, when I take the bmp from this bug and save it as mozilla.bmp, Mozilla simply ignores it. But when I open it and save the BMP again with a Windows Programm (the problem seems to be Windows only for example with OpenOffice Draw with 8-Bit Colour and RLE-Compression on (before: 8,91KB;after: 8,64KB), Mozilla shows the new splashscreen. Probably that the XPM doesn't work then is related to this. So the BMP seems to be like that, that Mozilla under Windows doesn't understand it in this format.
The copyright message needs to stay there (and it really should say "All Rights Reserved"). This is to cover the countries that don't recognise/follow the Berne copyright convention. On a different note, where does the splash screen reside? Is it in Mozilla.exe? Is the XPM or BMP version in the .EXE? (For Windows XP).
er... surely "all rights reserved" would forbid third party distribution of mozilla (not what's wanted, aside from the fact that it breaks the terms of the GPL). FWIW, Microsoft office apps say "this program is protected by US and international copyright laws as described in Help About". something like that would seem like the right idea, but if it's in the image it's not localizable. why not just drop the copyright from the image - it wasn't there on the old one anyway, and it's contained elsewhere in mozilla.
The "All Rights Reserved" bit is due to an earlier international copyright convention that didn't recognise the word "copyright". However, as you say, the copyright text is contained elsewhere in Mozilla (Help-About), thus it doesn't need to be on the image. Although, the Help-About text could be changed to include Codebase and Images, or something like that. (Seperate Bug?). Mind you, this is all mute until the splash screen actually works on all platforms.
The word is "moot" BTW. The XPM is what is in the source, a text format, that is compiled into a binary bitmap inside the mozilla.exe file on win32. It's compiled into the appropriate formats/locations for other platforms. As to what the problem is, the version checked into the tree isn't the same as the final.xpm attched here. Dunno if that's a problem...
That's right, Gerv made a mistake when making the XPM. He checked in a corrected version. I'll attach some version that works on Windows (so other could test i've this also works on Linux/Unix/etc.)
We've got this figured out. Photoshop's RLE is borked. I'll fix this tomorrow. Taking.
Assignee: gerv → jason
Status: ASSIGNED → NEW
windows splash size will be 8k, down from 60. yay. this will go in tomorrow after smoketests.
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
here we go.
another quick concern: are we licensed to use the revolution font? and if there is a license agreement, who holds it?
Gerv, will you be able to check this working version into the branch?
Attachment 115479 [details] and attachment 115480 [details] ("New splash" and "And I'm spent") have been checked into the branch. I don't have the disk space for two trees, so I couldn't build it, but I manually checked that the internal name of the XPM was correct. I'll watch the tinderbox carefully. There have been reports of the splash screen not working on the trunk, but that this produces a speedup. If someone can produce verifiable figures for this speedup, and it's significant, we may consider removing the splash. Otherwise, I'll be checking those two attachments into the trunk in the next couple of days. Gerv
Would it be possible to write the current version number to the splash screen (and obviously keep it updated for each version)? Seems to just be a general convention. More finished I guess you could say. Since it's real nice and plain, it would fit nicely in the lower right corner, or mnder "Mozilla"
That has nothing to do with this bug.
This seems to be fixed on the branch. removing blocks flag.
Checked into trunk. Resolving FIXED. Checking in splash.bmp; /cvsroot/mozilla/xpfe/bootstrap/splash.bmp,v <-- splash.bmp new revision: 1.5; previous revision: 1.4 done Checking in splash.xpm; /cvsroot/mozilla/xpfe/bootstrap/splash.xpm,v <-- splash.xpm new revision: 1.6; previous revision: 1.5 done Gerv
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 17 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla1.3final
Reopening. You didn't fix Mac.
Status: RESOLVED → REOPENED
Resolution: FIXED → ---
Mac CFM, that is (which still builds, and has the image in a PICT in the splash.rsrc file). We're still debating about whether to show a splash on Mac, and what format the file would be in.
The Mac (Mach-O, anyway) doesn't have a splash screen. That's bug 112559. That wasn't checked in because of its affect on Ts. So, somebody needs to decide if we *want* to fix this on Mac.
sfraser: do you have the tools to fix this on Mac CFM? I'm not sure I'd know where to start... if you can tell me how to do it, I will. Gerv
As far as the CFM build, don't worry about it. Also, the .bmp image checked in here works with the new Mach-O splash screen code that may or may not get checked in. The text in the picture even lines up nicely with its dynamic text box. What luck :-) So, I'd say nothing further needs to happen for Mac. If we have a splash screen, we can use this image.
While Mac CFM may still build, it isn't a supported platform anymore (no nightly or milestone builds, no tinderbox, etc.) This bug is fixed. Resolving as such.
Status: REOPENED → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 17 years ago → 16 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
*** Bug 32218 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Kerzy, your orange splash screen is a shocker. I made this a little while ago for my own pc, then I though about subbmitting it here. Its blue, but could be changed to red if that is what is wanted. PS> Sorry for posting another attatchment...
Which part of "Please do not attach other screens to this bug" did you not understand? This bug was fixed 8 months ago. Nothing further needed. Doing something you know is wrong and simultaneously apologising doesn't make it better.
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
I simply did not know where else to put this. Is there anything wrong with tying to help the community whos software I usee so often?
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.