44841 - [TRADEMARK] Remove all references to `JavaScript'

Status: RESOLVED INVALID

(Core Graveyard :: Tracking, defect, P3)

Description

[Matthew T (active 1999-2002)]

Per Mitchell Baker's comment in bug 43076, `JavaScript' is a trademark of Sun 
Microsystems, and all references to `JavaScript' should be removed from Mozilla
-- in the interface, and in filenames etc.

Where scripts in general are meant, references to `JavaScript' can be changed to 
`script' or `scripts' -- this also allows for forward compatibility of interface 
text if Mozilla supports other scripting languages in the future.

Where JavaScript in particular is meant, references to `JavaScript' can be 
changed to `ECMAScript'.

This bug may be used as a tracking bug for removing particular references to 
JavaScript in Mozilla.

Comment 1

[Doron Rosenberg (IBM)]

where should this go?

i thought js was netscape...

Comment 2

[Asa Dotzler [:asa]]

doron, mozilla != netscape  :)  I think this is going to become a tracking bug
and should probably be changed to the Tracking component.  

Comment 3

[leger]

chofmann, should I give this some sort of keyword?  should we get this removed 
ASAP?  mitchell?

Comment 4

[chris hofmann]

beards the guy to do this work if its required.
is it sun that make the claim that this should be done?
I think this might bring a tear to the eye of our fearless 
  leader that we would be spending any time on such 
  a non-productive task.

Comment 5

[Brendan Eich [:brendan]]

Sun allows others to use JavaScript under some conditions; reassigning to 
clayton to learn more about those conditions.

I believe we do not need to scrub Mozilla code of "JavaScript", and that if we 
did, that something would be gravely wrong (since I created JS, way back when, 
and carried it through ECMA and ISO standardization with Sun's blessing).  And, 
we have much more important work to do than to run around renaming things.

/be

Comment 6

[Matthew T (active 1999-2002)]

Yeah, I thought Brendan would enjoy this bug ... :-)

See also bug 44843, which is the same issue but for Java. I think the question 
is not `Does mozilla.org have permission to use Sun's trademarks in its 
browser?', but rather `Do mozilla.org *and any other Mozilla-derived browser 
distributors* have permission to use Sun's trademarks in their browsers?'. 
Because if not, then it's akin to linking to a closed-source library from 
within an open-source program (albeit on a much less major scale).

Comment 7

[Mitchell Baker]

Here's my view.  Speaking NOT as a lawyer, however, but as someone remembering 

the past.



The MPL 1.1 says that no one gets a right to use the trademark "Javascript" even 

if it's included in Mozilla code.  So we shouldn't be in violation of our 

trademark license with Sun even if all references aren't removed.  



These references to Javascript  should be removed if they are being used as a  

trademark.  I'n not actaully sure if this is the case, we would need to ask a 

trademark lawyer.  (There are some "fair use" and other exceptions that allow one 

to sue a trademarked word in limited settings; I'm not sure if the references in 

the code fall into any exceptions.)  If the references do need to be removed, we 

should do so as soon as we can, but I'm not sure it has to become a top priority 

right now.



As to others using it, yes, Sun has granted trademark licenses to some companies.  

I presume those using the Javascript trademark have a license to do so from Sun; 

no doubt including Netscape as well.



But I don't believe Sun has allowed Netscape to allow others to use JavaScript as 

a trademark without meeting any quality or other guidlines.  Since the MPL 

doesn't require reicipients to meet any one's trademark (or other) "guidlines" or 

compliance tests, we don't allow others to use "Javascript" throught the MPL.



So I don't believe Clayton is the correct owner of this.    

Comment 8

[Brendan Eich [:brendan]]

I'd be happy to reassign this to a trademark lawyer, but clayton should own it 
for now, because he does know of some deal (maybe it's defunct now) whereby Sun 
grants use of "JavaScript" as a mark, based on compliance or possibly even use 
of Mozilla JS code.

BTW, "ECMAScript" is not the right name for Mozilla's JS1.x language.  If we had 
to purge "JavaScript", we would do better to use "JS" (and no "JScript" jokes 
please!).  Anyway, ECMAScript was chosen as a political compromise, to be ugly 
enough (it sounds like a skin disease) that no one would use it in a product.

/be

Comment 9

[chris hofmann]

this might be the time to resurect 'livescript' or maybe create 'lovescript'... 
;-)

Comment 10

[Marc Attinasi]

Distribution of Clayton's bugs: please triage these and share the joy...

Comment 11

[Marc Attinasi]

Obviously this one should have STAYED on Clayton's list. Unfortunately his list 
is routinely triaged by others and he never really looks at it. I'll email him 
and get him to look at this issue. In the meantime, I have updated the summary 
in hopes of avoiding further attempts at 'normal' triaging.

Comment 12

[leger]

Putting on nsbeta3 radar so we don't loose this one.

Comment 13

[leger]

*** Bug 44843 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 14

[Matthew T (active 1999-2002)]

Expanding summary, since Jan marked bug 44843 as a dup of this one (and who am I 
to argue?).

Comment 15

[Kevin McCluskey (gone)]

Dividing up claytons bugs to triage.

Comment 16

[rods (gone)]

Really not sure what to do with this, so I will reassign to ekrock

Comment 17

[Matthew T (active 1999-2002)]

I don't think this is nsbeta3+, since Netscape presumably has permission to use 
these trademarks itself. It's an RTM issue for Mozilla, but not for Netscape.

Comment 18

[ekrock's old account (dead)]

Marking [nsbeta3-] and Future for now. Netscape now has no resources to spare 
for things like this between now and RTM of Netscape 6. Sun is working closely 
with us on the development of this product, has expressed no concerns in this 
area, and like us is working hard to deliver Netscape 6 on time, not to slow it 
down. Reassigning to Kent Walker of Netscape legal for investigation of whatever 
issues might/might not exist here and whether they apply to Netscape 6, Mozilla, 
both, or neither. I am sure that any issues that may exist can be resolved in a 
rational way by discussions between Sun and Netscape to everyone's satisfaction 
enabling timely delivery of Netscape 6 and Mozilla.

Comment 19

[Matthew T (active 1999-2002)]

[Bug 44843 is once more covering the Java trademark separately. Ours not to 
reason why ...]

Comment 20

[Mitchell Baker]

One correction from my earlier comment:  It's the Netscape PL that disclaims any 
trademark grants for Java or JavaScript.  So I'd say as long as JavaScript 
remains licensed under the NPL this isn't a stop-ship issue for  Mozilla either.  

I will try to find a trademark lawyer to look into the issue of whether the use 
of "javascript" in our code is use in a trademark sense or in a fair use sense.

To do this, we will need some precise examples of how "Javascript" is used.

Comment 21

[Ben Bucksch (:BenB)]

> It's the Netscape PL that disclaims any
> trademark grants for Java or JavaScript.  So I'd say as long as JavaScript
> remains licensed under the NPL this isn't a stop-ship issue for  Mozilla either.

If
- NPL does *not* grant trademarks for JavaScript
- vendors other than Netscape are not otherwise (e.g. by statements from Sun)
explicitly allowed to use "JavaScript"
- Mozilla uses JavaScript (all over the place)
this *is* a stop-ship issue for Mozilla IMO. IMO, mozilla.org should provide
code that vendors can just take, altler an redistibute, without worrying about
legal issues other than the M/N-PL. And trademarks infrigements *are* things to
worry about. As soon as one vendor gets into trouble (and this gets public),
mozilla.org's reputation will go down seriously (and maybe even that of
open-source in general).

Comment 22

[Mitchell Baker]

Can someone provides examples of how JavaScript is used?

Comment 23

[chris hofmann]

Attachment: attaching an lxr search of " javascript " in the source code

Comment 24

[chris hofmann]

there are more references to "javascipt" without spaces.  these are
were the javascript name is embedded in some longer string.

In many cases this is where there would be the most risk in
name change.

to see these go to http://lxr.mozilla.org/seamonkey/  type
javascipt in the first text box and hit "find"

Comment 25

[Kent Walker]

Mitchell's back and bored.

Comment 26

[lchiang]

per Brenden's email to me, this does not apply to Netscape rtm.  Putting rtm-.

Comment 27

[Henrik Gemal]

are we serious about this? Should we really remove references to "JavaScript".
Please dont call it Active Scripting...:)

Comment 28

[Brendan Eich [:brendan]]

Sun can sue me -- I suggest WONTFIXing this bug and getting on with more
important questions.

/be

Comment 29

[Andrew Hagen]

I am not a lawyer. Do NOT take my words for legal advice.

I suggest that somebody with managerial authority in the Mozilla Project 
contact the Netscape or AOL legal department, and ask for a legal opinion on 
the question posed by this bug.

This is something that should be done for 1.0.

Comment 30

[Brendan Eich [:brendan]]

Anyone using Mozilla code who is worried about this bug will have to consult his
or her own legal counsel.  Netscape/AOL's counsel is not going to say anything
binding here.

/be

Comment 31

[Braden]

mozilla.org doesn't need to look after its users' liability, just its own. And
since mozilla.org is not an entity distinct from AOL, I'm guessing it inherits
the right to use Sun's trademark from that corporation.

If that's true, it's past time this was put out to pasture. WONTFIX is too
generous, as it implies that there might be some validity to this bug. My vote's
for INVALID.

(Of course, if mozilla.org ever is spun off from AOL, issues like this will need
to be revisited.)

Comment 32

[Brendan Eich [:brendan]]

Braden said it best.

/be

Comment 33

[Ben Bucksch (:BenB)]

mitchell,

re comment 22: I think the most significant usage is in Preferences|Advanced,
where users "Enable JavaScript".

One of the problems might be that we actually do have a JavaScript
implementation ("product"). So, one could argue that this is an almost classical
trademark infriguement.
OTOH, this really is the *original* ("reference") implementation. Also, you
might argue that JavaScript is really a standard (in contrast to a
implementation/product) and we just *refer* to that standard.

Comment 34

[Patrick C. Beard]

The standard is known as ECMAScript, not JavaScript.