(Due to the importance of the problem, I will break my own rule and post a
non-tech email to fb-devel, too. But PLEASE REPLY ONLY to ibdi list.
Thanks.)

Maybe I was too strong, but since I think I was very polite in my original
email, I decided he deserves what he got (my last reply), because his answer
was nothing but arrogant:

Claudio Valderrama C. wrote:

> Brendan Eich wrote:
>> Claudio Valderrama C. wrote:
>>
>>> Dear sir:
>>>
>>> I use Mozilla as my default browser. However, I really can't
>>> understand why your colleages decided to use Firebird as the new
>>> name or code-name for Phoenix to sort out legal issues.
>>>
>>
>> Why is it so hard to understand? The Firebird RDBMS project followed
>> the same renaming path. Obviously, we both wanted to pick a name
>> with the same meaning as the original name we'd (indepenently)
>> chosen.
>
> It's so hard to understand that open source projects would bite one
> to another simply because both want the same name and the project
> that chooses the name AFTER feels with more or same rights because
> it's more widely known than the project that already was using the
> name. Open source projects should avoid clashing. It's not only good
> education. It's not only to put arrogance aside (the bigger wins).
> It's because open source projects should show that they aren't
> plagued by the same stupid fights between commercial companies. Who
> wins with those issues among OS efforts? Commercial, closed,
> traditional SW projects held by the big names in the industry. Many
> years ago, Lotus sued Borland for using the same menu structure.
> Totally sick. Later, Borland and Symantec had legal issues for trade
> secrets that nobody could assess. They had to settle down outside
> courts. That bickering should be kept away from OS projects, name
> included. There was no way we could know in early 2000 that Mozilla
> would choose Firebird; but there were several ways Mozilla devs could
> search at least in the most renowed OS repository, SF. Courtesy
> doesn't make anyone a coward. Courtesy and politeness make
> relationships better. That's all.
>
>>
>>> A quick search engine request would have
>>> revealed to anyone that Firebird is taken by a SourceForge-hosted
>>> project registered in mid 2000 and actively developed, a version of
>>> a RDBMS that has near 20 years of existence as a commercial product.
>>>
>>
>> It's ironic that Borland used Phoenix originally, too, and had to
>> change because of trademark infringement complaints. That's what
>> drove us along the same path. Our lawyers vetted Mozilla Firebird
>> and Firebird in the context of a Mozilla web browser, and found no
>> conflicts.
>
> Ah, nobody asks you to know the whole story: Borland is Borland.
> Borland TRIED to play in the Open Source arena but withdrew BEFORE
> testing the waters. There were several announcements between Jan-2000
> and June-2000 that even made Eric Raymond to write an enthusiast
> comment. However, the intention was declared dead in July-2000, half
> a year after the process was started, without any outcome. Borland
> DIDN'T attempt to change the name of their product. When Borland
> stepped back, they couldn't afford to undo the open source license...
> too much bad press after all the noise they did to rise their shares
> value. Therefore, Borland didn't and couldn't endorse the open source
> variant known now as Firebird, less even suggest the name, since they
> continued their traditional closed-source, pay-per-release venture
> with the original RDBMS name. Rest assured Borland doesn't endorse
> Firebird-SQL in any way. Their only influence is that we (unlike
> other variants) fully acknowledge and honor the license.
>
> Furthermore, and after having clarified that Borland has no
> relationship with us other than owning the original code's rights,
> you should know that Borland is very bad at choosing names: they had
> to rename MIDAS, DatabaseExpress and AdoExpress, among other names,
> due to legal issues, because their lawyers don't do their job very
> well.
>
> Your lawyers can do an extensive research to conclude that no legal
> conflict happens. And they may be right. However, it's common sense
> that two projects in the same area shouldn't overlap in the name
> because it only confuses users. Pontiac Firebird and Firebird the
> RDBMS (or Firebird-SQL, etc) belong to different areas: cars v/s SW.
> Even if you register the name, it's allowed, since Pontiac didn't
> register anything in the SW area. As an opposed example, Coca-Cola
> registers its name in all areas for marketing and financial purposes.
> However, Mozilla-Firebird and RDBMS-Firebird belong both to the SW
> area. It's not obligation, no legal issue. It's common sense. We
> didn't thought we must waste money/efforts registering the name.
>
>
>>
>>> We don't enjoy the confusion that will arise.
>>>
>>
>> What confusion?
>
> Obviously, Mozilla is more widely known than several open source
> RDBMS, so if a browser takes the name, it puts on us the effort to
> explain that we didn't hijack the name and we chose (for good or bad)
> the name before.
>
>
>>> Nobody had the minor courtesy
>>> of emailing us previously.
>>>
>>
>> We didn't mail anyone who used Firebird, including Pontiac. An RDBMS
>> is not a browser. I don't see the problem, especially as we hope
>> Mozilla Firebird will be a code name, not a product brand name.
>
> You don't need to warn Pontiac. As I explained before, they play
> exclusively in other area. Had we decided to register FB in the SW
> area, it wouldn't be too clear that RDBMS v/s Browser can coexist,
> depending on the fine grain the lawyers and courts want to apply. In
> most countries, today there's no great distinction between different
> purpose of programs for deciding trademark issues: SW is SW, a whole
> bunch.
>
> However, on the good and friendly side, the point that makes the
> change affordable for us is that currently it's used as CODE NAME. I
> personally use Mozilla 99% of the time instead of other browsers and
> wouldn't see the reason to see it with another name, even if I didn't
> have any relationship with Firebird-RDBMS. I hope it won't be seen as
> a possible alternative name for the product. If the product begins
> being referred as Firebird because your devs want to emphasize the
> name, we have better fish to fry than mozilla_org, so legal actions
> become very atractive. I hope sincerely this will never (have to)
> happen. It would be a shame for open source, but everybody has the
> right to and would defend his/her position when good manners fail,
> right?
>
>
> Best regards and I will put emphasis in the fact that the code name
> and not the official name underwent the change.
>
> C.
>
>> /be
>>
>>>
>>> Respectfully,
>>>
>>> C.
>>> --
>>> Claudio Valderrama C.
>>> Consultant, SW developer.
>>> www.cvalde.com - www.firebirdSql.org