> 1. 'Firebird' was/is/would be the Trademark for
> firebird.sourceforge.net, which is the same important for 'Mozilla'

to

> mozilla.org. It is just not workable for a compromise. Just like

M$

> has to sue Lindows to protect their 'windows' system.

That works only if there are no prior uses of "Windows" as an
operating system name.

Please see news://news.mozilla.org:119/b9pe8u$r6r2@...
for a message from Mitchell Baker that respectfully disputes the novel
legal theory that www.firebirdsql.org or related organizations have a
trademark claim to "Firebird" in the domain of all software.

But legalities aren't enough, and we shouldn't have to resort to them
to get along. I've already posted here my apology for not intervening
and seeking advise/consent from firebirdsql.org folks when we cleared
the trademark hurdles for using Firebird for a Mozilla project name.
If we had to do it all over again, I'm sure we would have done things
differently.

But it's too late for that. What we don't need more of are Mozilla
fan-bloggers flame-baiting, and Firebird boosters doing sassy victory
dances ;-) before the press about how "Mozilla backed down". This
isn't a contest to see who can hold onto the name "Firebird" as a
trademark, or about who can hold onto Google page rank.

I'm here to tell you that mozilla.org staffers, whatever hard feelings
they may still harbor, want to get on with the application separation,
and get to a point where we don't need "Mozilla Firebird" as a name to
disambiguate "Mozilla Browser". We have no interest in feuding.

> 2. Yes, there was lack of communication between two parties. Why

is

> necessary two seperated and work independently teams? Only because
> 'Phoenix' chooses 'Firebird' for replacement. And 'phoenix' is in
> fact, developed as a standalone product, and was orginially not in

the

> scope of mozilla.org.

False -- phoenix (originally mozilla/browser) was always a mozilla.org
project.

> 3. Who is the real boss of mozilla.org? Asa? AOL? .. We don't know
> if there is already establish a formal dialogue between two parties.

There is, and staff@... is well-known as the point of contact
for Mozilla issues that don't have a more specific owner. Please see
http://www.mozilla.org/mozorg.html, and follow the "Who We Are" link
(http://www.mozilla.org/about/roles.html).

> 4. It seems 'Firebird' would be disappear from mozilla.org product
> line in the long run. But is it necessary to fix it for this few
> weeks while their existing routine still calling it as 'phoenix'?

Yes, in the short run.

> As a users of both product, I really wish to see both teams could

one

> day work hand in hand. For instance, Mozilla embedded Firebird in
> their Mozilla Mail and Mozilla calendar to improve their
> functionality, while Firebird could use Mozilla to enter to realm of
> XML etc., There are so many possibilities for both teams to work
> together if they want to.

Possibly, there could be joint developments. I agree with Lester
Caine and others, though, that XML is not the hammer for all nails,
especially relational database nails. The w3c draft recommendations
and press releases to the contrary notwithstanding!

/be