Mozilla Foundation to ban Firefox derivative browsers?

THE MOZILLA FOUNDATION used to be all about competition, about creating and implementing web standards and delivering code that could be re-used by anyone. In fact, during the 1998-2004 time frame when Netscape/AOL funded the Mozilla.org project - including dozens of programmers on Netscape's payroll, the re-branding and use of the Gecko engine by third party applications was encouraged.

That's how the CompuServe 7.0 client ended up using Gecko, how AOL for Mac OS-X uses Gecko, and how the now buried AOL client for linux -which was embedded into the " Gateway Connected Touchpad"internet appliance- also used the Mozilla/Netscape's "Gecko engine", and how IBM created the "IBM Web Browser for OS/2", also based on Mozilla.org's code.

At one time, Mozilla.org said that the browser package was primarily intended for tweaking, rebranding and distribution by third parties, rather than to be downloaded directly from Mozilla.org by each individual web user. But things changed when AOL finally let go the Mozilla.org project in mid 2003 and the Mozilla Foundation was born. Then, the Mozilla Foundation (now commonly referred to as MoFo in the mozillaspeak lingo) started pushing the separate e-mail and web browsers, instead of the integrated suite, and a whole marketing operation was created around MoFo's now separate components (Firefox and Thunderbird) targeting the end-user audience. Yet, at the same time, the open source nature of MoFo's code made one believe that re-distribution and re-branding was still welcome. That seems not to be the case anymore, if one reads MoFo's Ben Goodger's blog.

As we reported, Goodger said of Netscape's v8.0 browser: ""If security is important to you, this demonstration should show that browsers that are redistributions of the official Mozilla releases are never going to give you security updates as quickly as Mozilla will itself for its supported products". He was referring to the fact that Netscape initially made v8.0 available, which was based on Firefox 1.03.

There's one important fact that Mr. Goodger forgets... less than 24 hours after the initial Netscape v8.0 was posted, AOL made available version 8.01 which is based in Firefox 1.04 and hence fixes the three vulnerabilities present in Firefox 1.03. In fact, when I clicked the "download Netscape 8.0" link on early Friday in order to test it and write my review, I already got the fixed version 8.01. That does speak quite well of AOL's reaction time after the initial mishap of shipping their browser based on Firefox 1.03. The fact that the company is maintaining a security alerts web page and that the Netscape 8 browser is able to check for updates and fixes at regular intervals also speaks volumes about the change of attitude with regards to browser security at the online giant.

But the damage of Goodger's comments a day earlier was done already: an article on Friday (remember I got Netscape 8.01 with is based on the latest Firefox 1.04 and fixes the bugs Goodger complained about the very same day) was published on the WebproNews.com web site, titled "Netscape 8 goes from Zero Bugs to 41 in just Hours", and read "For users brave enough to go back to the past and try Netscape 8, its positive features include..." - yes, bias, we've heard of it. It turns out that the information was wrong and there were only THREE, not 41, bugs in the original Netscape 8.0, and bugs which were apparently due to Firefox 1.03 (not AOL's own engine-switching code or modified skins). But that report was picked by other sites and circulated around, unchecked. So if AOL fixed the problem in a day and shipped NS 8.01 based on Firefox 1.04, why did the company get all that bad press?. My personal guess is that some folks don't like competition.

And perhaps it's just me, but I see some irony in Ben Goodger complaining about the insecurity of the initial Netscape 8.0, which was in turn caused by the insecurity of the Mozilla Foundation's own Firefox 1.03 code. As some users put it in Goodger's own blog: "I think that it was bad form to go after Netscape that way just to make yourself look better. So when did you decide to become Microsoft?. And why (even if it is harmless) would you post an exploit for a flaw that may still affect some firefox users? Just to prove that Netscape sucks?. I have been using Firefox since version 0.5.x and have loved every minute of it, but if you are going to resort to Microsoft's browser bashing tactics and posting exploits just to make Firefox look better then I will move on to something else".

Another user said: "Shouldn't Mozilla work with other companies (such as Netscape) to try to resolve these problems? Rather then publicly slamming them. I expect Mozilla (a non profit organization that I have donated to) to cooperate with others that want to use their code. Not fight against them like any other for-profit company". Other blog visitor commented: "Mozilla owes a hell of a lot to Netscape even if it's just a brand name now, and making fun of AOL's attempts to get something back from their investment is not very mature.. especially when Firefox suffers from being reasonably unsafe as well. Netscape 8 serves a purpose and Mozilla should respect that."

And someone concluded: "If you (Ben, I mean) are that keen on attacking redistributors, wouldn't it be easier to change the licensing so they couldn't do it. Why do the work that enables redistribution and then celebrate when you fail to enable it to happen effectively?". That's exactly the question that Ben Goodger isn't answering. Sadly, somewhere among the transition from Mozilla.org to MoFo, Firefox radicals embarked on a "Firefox the product is the best thing on the planet" holy war.

I think that Goodger's childish Netscape-bashing goes against the very spirit of the early Mozilla.org's mission, and if the Foundation doesn't want any other redistribution than the official Firefox browser, then they should change the licence wording to reflect that. Finally, I wonder why should companies contribute or fund the Mozilla Foundation, if any derivative work or redistribution of the Foundation's browsers they create is going to raise the FUD mocking and anger of Mozilla's "lead engineer". µ

" Update: the Mozilla Foundation got in touch with me to let me know that Ben Goodger currently is not an employee of this organization, something I've heard before. However, there's a fine line between "doing contributed work for" and "working for" (as in "being an employee of") in the OSS field. Goodger describes himself as the 'lead Firefox engineer', and is currently working for Google as well as part-time on Mozilla.org. In a blog back in January, Mr. Goodger said that after the change of employers, he'd "work out of the Mozilla Foundation offices regularly as needed," which lead myself to believe that he was still associated with the Foundation on an official level -even if not for profit. It shouldn´t be surprising then that due to Goodger´s past at the Foundation and his involvement in leading the Firefox browser development, his words are often misinterpreted as representing the project.