Template talk:User browser:Firefox/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

History

Based on the code found on User:Havok's page and {{User en}} Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 21:48, 2005 August 31 (UTC)

Images

"Fair use" images, such as logos, should NOT be on anything other than ARTICLES. Put the Firefox logo back and the image WILL be deleted. Alphax τεχ 03:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

See the description page of the image, threatening prior to reading that (avalible on the images description page), copyright paranoia is bad for health. --Cool Cat Talk 08:43, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Oh someone messed with the image I was using... Anyways see below --Cool Cat Talk 08:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Logo for Firefox Browser, intended for use to reference the name of the browser and thus this use is fair.

Moreover, we have permission to use this for promotional purposes; e.g., on a user page. From a Mozilla FAQ: "Can I put Firefox or Thunderbird banners on my website? Can I link to you?" Answer: "Thanks for your support :-) Of course you may. We have button programs for exactly this:"[1].

From mozilla.org "Put one or more of these buttons on your website to help us spread the word about Firefox. We appreciate it!"

From: Template:Fair use-firefox

Your Wikipedia userpage is not "your website", it's part of the GFDL licenced Wikipedia project. Wikipedia policy does not allow copyrighted images in this context, so wether or not the law and the copyright holder permit it is a moot point in this case, and IMHO there is no point in starting down that slipperly slope by challenging that. If we start allowing some images to be used and not others things will get even more confused than they are now, and enforcement (wich have been very lax in the past) will become next to impossible. Better to keep things simple and just say no unfree images outsite article namespace. Period. --Sherool 15:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Using/with

I'm very sad about this edit. Sure, it's a line shorter. But now not only is the template inconsistent with all the other similar templates, but also it ruins a bad joke I'd made parodying the wording of these templates! Of course, it was already pretty spoiled when the format changed from the absurd "This user uses X" to "This user contributes using X", but still. Blah. -205.188.116.132 14:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

alternate version

The alternate version now in fox1

ie, if you want a red version, use {{User fox1}}. pfctdayelise 15:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I see this stupid box has changed yet again. Can't we just make two diffrent boxes and get along?--Ewok Slayer --(User | Talk | Contribs) 22:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, didn't know, changed it to the other look now →AzaToth 22:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


Images!

Template:Userbox browser I notice how {{userbox browser|mozilla firefox}} contains the logo, so why can't this template. Infact, if you look on Wikipedia:Userboxes, you will find lots of logos in use, so I don't see the fuss over the one? Ian13ID:540053 21:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I quote from the image copyright tag: "It is believed that we have permission to use this for promotional purposes; e.g., on a user page." Therefore, I plan to reinstate the tag shortly, unless any objections over the image on the image are raised.

The following pages link to this file:

  • User:Tedernst
  • User:Eurleif
  • User:John Kenney
  • User:Pipian
  • User:Masssiveego
  • User:T-Boy
  • User:Salmon
  • User:ClockworkSoul
...

Ian13ID:540053 21:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Neither of them should have images as far as I'm concerned (unless you can find a free alternative that is "close enough" (I believe for example the globe without the fox is not copyrighred)). The logo remains copyrighted and we don't even allow "with permission" images in articles anymore, so I don't see how theyr permission to use it on "your site" change anyting with regards to Wikipedia policy on copyrighted material in userspace. The usual response at this point tend to be "but promoting FireFox on my userpage doesn't hurt Mozillas non existing commercial interests", to wich I can only reply that not using theyr logo on your userpage in no way hurt you either, while using it makes it that much harder to enforce the "ban" on copyrighted material in userspace because others will look at the firefox logo and think it's "free for all". Gah I probably sound like some rule thumbing grouchy old "policy for the sake of policy" guy, but I remain convinved the "no copyrighted stuff in userspace period" is the best policy, even if "common sense" is against it in scertain cases (like when a user upload a copyrighred image of himself). Long storry short copyrighted stuff in userpscae, with permission or otherwise is an unnessesary "taint" on the supposed GFDL status of the Wikipedia. In articles stuch images at least serve a purpose, on userpages they are defenently not needed. Remember userpages and everyting on them are also mirrored at a lot of sites, for example [2] and [3] --Sherool (talk) 01:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • It is legal to use this logo here. [4] — Yaohua2000 03:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
      • It's also legal to use images licensed as "for non commercial use" or "with permission on", or for me to reserve all rights to a image of myself and upload it to my userpage, but Wikipedia policy still doesn't allow it. So if a copyrighted image owned by the user is not usable on his own userpage with his permission, what makes this logo any more usable? See Wikipedia talk:Licensing for community images for some relevant debate on the issue. --Sherool (talk) 04:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
ALthough it seems Mozilla may allow it, it also seems wikipedia may not. I have mentioned this here and I hope that with some luck this can be resloved. For now, I am quite happy for this image to be removed if it is seen as truely nessary, however if someone will consider making a GFDL alternative. Ian13ID:540053 10:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Alright, here's the real reason why I removed the image: I wanted a version without it. Alphax τεχ 16:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
The version I first uploaded [5] was made of an independent artist, and I removed the most of the fox, so it should be ok to use. →AzaToth 16:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Maybe, if the artist who made it released it under a GFDL compatable free license. --Sherool (talk) 03:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Mozilla by the way, have agreed to their logo being used on userpages, [6]. Ian13ID:540053 13:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I have never suggested that Mozilla would have a problem with it. I'm just saying that unless Mozilla is willing to release theyr logo under the GFDL (or something compatable) then our policy have a problem with the images beeing used on userpages. Remember we are bound first by what Wikipedias "terms of use" allows, and then by what we are legaly entiteled to. For example if you write a rant about some political topic in the main namespace claiming it is your "constitutional right to free speech" to do so, it will still get deleted because it violate Wikipedia policy. Simmilarly you are not allowed to use copyrighted images on your userpage, even if you yourself own the copyright to the image. So rely, what Mozilla have given permission to do is kinda moot in this case IMHO. --Sherool (talk) 17:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh, I am aware of that, I am just highlighting that Mozilla have no issue with it, so I am saying it is now mearly down to Wiki Policy. Ian13ID:540053 17:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
and as such I have removed the image. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 06:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Gah. If anyone can find a nice alternative image to add in place of the text, feel free to add it. — TheKMantalk 07:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you guys think we can use this one? [7] Here is the source url. [8] It is someone's picture of the firefox plush toy. 07:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I bet it would look kinda odd at 40px. — TheKMantalk 08:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree. I was thinking we could have a close-up of the head area. I would gladly edit and upload the picture, except I don't know if we have an appropriate license. What sort of rights do we have for amateur photos of plush toys? 08:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, I uploaded the image anyway. We'll see if anyone complains. 10:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Something like this maybe. 08:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I could swear that FireFox plush toy was a raccoon, or I just don't see enough real-life foxes. — TheKMantalk 09:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

For the good of mankind

Really, do you think that removing this image is in the best interests of the browser and/or mankind? Let's think about this here. Who wants a little piece of text with a blank orange box next to it advertising everyone's favorite browser? No one. It's just not cool. And even if you did leave it on, what repercussions would come of it? I can't think of a single one. I'm pretty sure that the Mozilla Foundation would rather have an image they specifically entitled us to use promoting their wonderful browser than a little piece of meaningless nothing advertising Firefox. Come on, let's be honest. Without that image, I (and many other people) will entirely remove the userbox from our userpages. By removing this image, you're actually killing the original idea entirely.

  • We should use it because they specifically allow us to.
  • We should use it because it promotes free software.
  • We should use it because we love the browser.
  • We should use it because we want to spread firefox.
  • We should use it because if we don't, many will remove the userbox entirely.

We have the right to use this image. We can, and we should. I have spoken. --Zachary Murray 09:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

No you don't have the right to use the image since Wikipedia guidelines don't allow it unless the Mozilla Foundation is willing to release it under the GFDL or a compatible license or their willing to release it into the public domain. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 09:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Could anyone post a specific link to this policy? (I could use another link on my user page) Thanks. — TheKMantalk 09:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fair use JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 09:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, bear with me, I'm trying to get a better understanding of this. So we can't use the logo in a userbox since usage on Wikipedia specific pages is not fair use, and Mozilla granting permission to use the logo on Wikipedia falls under "Downstream use"? — TheKMantalk 09:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

We have the right to use it, however the policy on fair use images means they can onl be used in articles, so although stupid, it has to go. I fully approve of the plush toy though. Atleast it's funny. Ian13ID:540053 11:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is what I think, then the image should not have the restrictions of fair use and should be tagged diferently. Would solve all the problems. Hmm.. Let me try something... --Cool CatTalk|@ 12:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Community use images

There is one tag for images that are uploaded for use only in user, user talk, and Wikipedia space pages. Images tagged with this tag may not be used in articles. Use this tag only for material like personal portraits, photographs of gatherings of Wikipedians, and other such content intended to help foster a sense of community amongst Wikipedians, where the uploader is unable or unwilling to release the image under a free license.

Image:Mozilla Firefox logo for userpages ONLY do not use in articles.png
Ah there it is. Now I can't seem to find the firefox image I want. :/ --Cool CatTalk|@ 12:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Firefox guys will not release their logo under a free license so i think this is where the "unable or unwilling to release the image under a free license" part kicks in. Tha tag is strictly to help foster a sense of community (its a nice browser which makes RC patrol rather easy and navigation on tens of pages managable). Problem solved? --Cool CatTalk|@ 12:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I think this is a good solution. I have already seen several people take the box off of their user page. We'll probably lose a lot more if we don't change it. -Scm83x 12:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
That template is not usable, it's part of a proposal (that doesn't seem to be going anywhere), images tagged with that template is currently speedy deletion candidates, I updated it to indicate this fact per [9]. --Sherool (talk) 14:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I belive as has been said so many times before, that it is fair use, and does not qualify for any other licence, so therefore, the firefox logo should NOT be used. Ian13ID:540053 15:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[10] If modifying the template I inserted was intended to annoy me it has been highly sucessful, if not I think people should have a read of m:Copyright Paranoia. If firefox is ok with it why the hell do we have an issue with it? Whats the 'LOGIC' behind this endless looking debate? --Cool CatTalk|@ 16:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Deleting images or marking images for deletion in the middle of a debate discussing what should be done is highly bad taste, while I do not mind you removing the image from the userbox marking it for deletion is really annoying. It is not like the planets future will be comprimised if the image stays there (on wikipedia servers) for like 4 days or something... --Cool CatTalk|@ 16:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, making community images (which is no longer in use) is even worse in my eyes than just using the fairuse one. It needs to be decided if we care for wikipedia laws or not, and if we do, what image to use instead. It doesn't bother me, but community tagging hardly seems a solution. Ian13ID:540053 21:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Plush toy image

I have tagged Image:Firefox01.png as possibly unfree because summary "I am unsure of the about the license on this picture. It appears to be an amateur photo of the firefox plush toy for which the author does not have a copyright", leads be to believe it is not public domain. I therefore am on a hunt for an alternative image, which has a compattable licence. Ian13ID:540053 11:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I got one Image:Firefox02.png, which is under {{Cc-by-sa-2.0}}, so updating image.

How about GPL

If we can get a Mozilla image that is released under GPL, would that be compatible enough with GFDL for everyone to be happy with? xaosflux Talk/CVU 16:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

In summary...

The removal of the Firefox logo is "stupid" and illogical, but we must bureaucratically follow policy to the letter, instead of applying common sense. Isn't this where WP:IAR comes in? —David Levy 16:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

A Quick Application of Common Sense

First off, David, IAR does not come into play here. Add images to userboxes in no way makes Wikipedia better. Secondly, regardless of what Mozilla has said regarding using the images, they are still under copyright, and using said copyrighted images on userpages is specifically prohibited here. Thirdly, and perhaps most overlooked, is that the images we are using are PNG's that use alpha transparency, a feature not supported in Internet Explorer, so while us Firefox users will not notice it, those ~85% of people reading our user pages will see a nasty white box around the image. Eightball 17:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

1. Subjectively, many people feel that removing the Firefox logo makes the template worse. Therefore, keeping it makes the template (and by extension, Wikipedia) better. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first, but that doesn't mean that the community aspect is irrelevant.
2. Yes, this image technically violates the letter of the policy in question, but I don't believe that it violates the spirit. This is an unusual case, and wasn't what the policy's authors had in mind.
3. I said nothing about using any specific image file. By all means, let's switch to one with the same background color as the sidebox. —David Levy 17:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Just using a gif solves IE issues. Ian13ID:540053 17:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
it's not optimal to use gif for this, read Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Format →AzaToth 17:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
GIFs are limited to 256 colors. If we wanted to use a 256-color image, we could use a PNG-8 file (the transparency of which displays properly in IE). —David Levy 17:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

removed again

Having an image only for use on userpages is even a bigger copyvio then misusing a fair use image. I've removed and deleted the image again as a copyvio. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 17:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the image in question was uploaded with inappropriate restrictions (and therefore was properly deleted), but why must you continually uglify the template to such an extent? You didn't even use the correct style of sidebox lettering. —David Levy 18:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Because the alternative would be leaving a big redlink there to a non existent image. I think the current image works fine btw in terms of both copyright and in fitting with making the template look ok. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 18:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Obviously, you weren't going to leave the broken link, but you could have restored the firefox photograph or used the correct style of lettering. —David Levy 18:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Ok, this is getting ridiculous. Every time I visit my userpage the image is something different. Right now it's blank. I like the red panda photo most myself. Jellypuzzle 18:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Well now we have an image on the template that can be used permanently assuming of course no other users try to switch it back to being a copyright violation. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 18:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
It's fine now. Thanks. It did get me wondering whether similar action isn't required over at Template:User_Photoshop though. Jellypuzzle 19:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, that got deleted. — TheKMantalk 21:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Which image?

It really needs to be decided which image is going to be used, and I hope this template sticks to it, the constant change is driving me mad! Ian13ID:540053 20:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

What's wrong with the old, official image? Apparently it's been deleted because I can't find it. However, Mozilla allows the use of these images. "Put one or more of these buttons on your website to help us spread the word about Firefox. We appreciate it!" [11] In fact, the current logo is illegal: "Can I modify your logos and distribute the result? No, sorry. The logo files themselves (e.g. the ones distributed with the apps) are copyrighted, and so making and distributing any derivative works would be a copyright infringement. The logo's also a trademark, and so if the result is confusingly similar to the original, it's a violation of trademark law too." [12] Even if the image was reverse engineered, it looks "confusingly similar to the original" and is such not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. So there is nothing wrong with the regular logo, so long as it isn't high rez: "Can I have high-resolution copies of the logos? In general, no, sorry. If you have a very good reason, e.g. you are a print publication wanting to feature Firefox on the cover, contact the Visual Identity Team." (same source as the second quote above). Technically, the standalone firefox logo is not on the page of logos, but I'm sure it's fine, and remember that the one we're using now is illegal. Besides, Mozilla "stole" the Wikipedia software; the formatting looks eerily similar and there's even an Edit this page link on the bottom of most of their web pages. I use firefox and can get us a 128 by 128 pixel logo (i.e., not high rez) if the copyright is cleared, which it should be based on the above evidence.--HereToHelp (talk) 20:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes but Wikipedia doesn't so it can't be used. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 20:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't what? Use firefox? I'm sure it's fine; we're promoting (or at least using a neutral tone when refering to) Firefox, right?--HereToHelp (talk) 20:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, lets finish this, I uploaded Image:Mozilla Firefox.svg now, thats totally free to use, no fox what so ever. Image:Mozilla Firefox.svg →AzaToth 21:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

What's that supposed to mean? The real logo is fine.--HereToHelp (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
The real logo is not released under a free or GFDL compattable licence. It is therefore Wikipredia's policy as a fair-use image to display a product, that it can only be used in articles, and not in templates or userpages. I hope that is the last time I have to say that here. Sorry if it sounds abrupt. Ian13ID:540053 21:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Some people prefer Image:Firefox02.png - the image of the creature represented in the firefox plush toy... I personally dislike Image:Mozilla_Firefox.png and see no purpose to images without a fox since it doesn't represent the program. Ian13ID:540053 21:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Turns out the real image wasn't deleted. It's Image:MozillaFirefoxLogo.png. There's nothing wrong with using this image because of sources cted above. Those reasons are that the copyright holder lets us use this image. But, in the spirit of compromise...
Image:Mozilla Firefox.png This user contributes using Mozilla Firefox but can't decide which logo to use. Image:Mozilla Firefox Logo.png

Let's use the real logo and be done with it. --HereToHelp (talk) 22:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I quote from Wikipedia:Fair use: "Fair use images should only be used in the article namespace. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages.". Ian13ID:540053 22:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I quote from Template talk:User democrat: "I talk to karmafist on IRC and he said that policy was changed about fair use stuff at WP:FU. Because of this, I will drop my copyright issues and disengage from this subject. ... Zach (Smack Back) 22:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)" Looks like that speaks for itself.--HereToHelp (talk) 22:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Licensing for community images proposal

Just thought I should mention the Wikipedia:Licensing for community images policy proposal since it might interest some of you (regarding usage of the Firefox logo in user pages). The page was untouched for a month before I posted a comment, but maybe a few of you out there may want to breathe some life into the proposal. — TheKMantalk 20:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

No offence, but isn't it just stupid to have to have one imag for article only, and one for everything non-article? Ian13ID:540053 21:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps it is, but per Wikipedia policy, that can't happen. Though, maybe while we're at it, we should delete all other images only used on user pages, since they obviously contribute nothing and use up precious data space... — TheKMantalk 22:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:Firefox01.png

I have contacted the author of this image, and they have decided to release this into the public domain, therefore this seems rather suitable, bing the official mozilla plush mascot. Ian13ID:540053 22:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

It's the plush mascot...but does anyone know opr care besides you?--HereToHelp (talk) 22:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I do! I thought it was an amusing photo. 09:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The plush mascot is a terrible idea. Eightball 22:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

It truly does resemble a raccoon. (So do the distantly related red pandas, but not to that extent.)
What was wrong with the unofficial logo? It isn't illegal. HereToHelp misinterpreted Mozilla's notice, which refers to the distribution of images that are derivative or likely to confuse or mislead consumers regarding the source of a product or service. These are basic elements of copyright law and trademark law, and Mozilla isn't legally capable of imposing the type of restrictions that HTH suggests (nor have they attempted to). —David Levy 22:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Alright. But the rest of my argument stands: they said it was fine to use Image:MozillaFirefoxLogo.png. So why can't we?--HereToHelp (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy technically forbids using the official Firefox logo on user pages (despite Mozilla's consent) because it isn't compatibly licensed or in the public domain. I personally believe that the policy in question wasn't intended to cover this sort of case (and is being enforced too strictly), but I also believe that the unofficial logo is a reasonable replacement. —David Levy 23:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh, you're kidding. WHO DELETED IT???!!! --HereToHelp (talk) 22:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I deleted it since it was a blatant copyright violation and an attempt to get around policy, it was also a duplicate (other than the image) of the 2 other firefox templates that already exist. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 22:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
You've continually referred to this as a "copyright violation," and that isn't accurate. Mozilla has consented to this type of use, so their copyright isn't being infringed. It does contradict Wikipedia policy, but only because this type of situation wasn't considered when the wording was drafted. The true intention was to follow the principles of fair use law, thereby preventing copyright and trademark infringement. —David Levy 23:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
It is a fairuse violation in the sense that we claim fair use which only allows it's use very strictly on directly related articles and it's a policy violation because policy requires that it has be universally licensed by the copyright holder (Mozilla Foundation) in a certian licensing style or we can't use it other than through a claim of fair use. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 23:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
The point that you're missing is that the image was displayed with Mozilla's permission, not via a claim of fair use. Yes, Wikipedia policy technically doesn't accommodate this type of arrangement, but that doesn't render it illegal. —David Levy 23:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Mozilla overides Wikipedia here. Remember that there are no hard fast rules, and to follow the "spirit of the rules [which is] is more important than the letter.--HereToHelp (talk) 02:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree with HereToHelp, uh, here. To use the logo would be in good faith, considering Mozilla offers permission. jareha 03:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I also agree. Why don't we make a new copyright status template, something like {{userpage_exclusive}} (I made an example template, check the link) that would say, for example, "This image is subject to copyright, but the copyright holder has specifically given permission for this image to be displayed on user pages. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. For more information, see Copyrights." That way, there is no fair use violation, Jtkiefer won't delete anyone's images anymore, we get to use the logo, and everyone goes home happy. Something to the effect of Wikipedia:Licensing_for_community_images? Maybe if we get that in effect, we could get over this debate. --Zachary Murray 19:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:Firefox02.png

If we can't have the Mozilla Firefox logo (though I think considering the free distibution of the logo for promotion it's silly we can't) I think we should either get someone from the community here to make a fair-use replacement or go for something like Image:Firefox02.png which I like the best as it adds a cute touch to my userpage. I personally can't stand the plush toy thing as it looks like a steamrollered racoon. Nothing against steamrollered racoons of course, just not on my userpage please. The text on its own is dull beyond belief. Jellypuzzle 00:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of replacing the template on your user page with your preferred version of the box. :-) —David Levy 00:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Wow! You're a star! Thankee. I suppose the result of this debate is now irrelevant to my egotistical self. On my page it'll be red pandas forever. Jellypuzzle 00:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Discussion regarding vote

Official logo (no idea where that is now) - Explicitly breaks Fairuse image policy, however that was designed to protect WP, and Mozilla have said it is allowed. (If it is copyrighted but for any purpose then {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} could be used).

{{CopyrightedFreeUse}} means the copyright holder release all rights to the image and that people can modify, redistrubute and use for commercial purposes at will, I doubth that's what Mozilla has in mind when they say you can display theyr logo on your site. The closest alternative is {{permission}}, wich as you can see is not an option. Other than that either of the fee images are fine by me. --Sherool (talk) 09:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
No, it wouldn't quite fall under that. {{permission}} is fine, but that's not going to help us. Here is firefox logo guidelines, if they are followed, they don't mind, but I can't see anything there that means Wikipedia will allow it. I have contacted Mozilla about this. Ian13ID:540053 09:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
We could take a vote on the free images. Don't forget about the the one that Ian found! 10:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Decision on image/text

Here are the free options for the box. (Mozilla have given permission for their logo to be used in this context, but Wikipedia forbids it).

- Image:Firefox01.png Image of the plush toy from mozilla of the official mascot, and can be viewed as atleast humourious. A public domain image.

Image:Mozilla Firefox.png - Image:Mozilla_Firefox.png - An alternative to official browser logo. GNU licenced.

- Image:Red panda.png Image of a red panda. GNU licenced.

Image:Firefox.png - Image:Firefox.png - Nice encorporation of GNU web-browser logo and the red panda toy.

Image:Wikifox.png - Image:Wikifox.png - Edited Wikimedia Commons Red Panda image with Wikipedia main page screenshot.

So, which of these (or any others), is it to be? Ian13ID:540053 10:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:Mozilla Firefox Logo.png - Image:Mozilla Firefox Logo.png - The official logo. Special licensing now allows the use of this image. Now it breaks Mozilla image restrictions...

I'd say use the official logo Image:MozillaFirefoxLogo.png if someone hadn't deleted it. Seeing as how that's the case, use text. Asfor option three, it looks "confusingly similar" to the real logo (this was all said above) and thus can not be used.--HereToHelp (talk) 13:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
As I explained, this is a misinterpretation of Mozilla's notice, which summarizes basic copyright/trademark law. Again, Mozilla couldn't impose that type of restriction if they wanted to (which they don't). —David Levy 13:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks like someone re-uploaded a decent logo. It is fair use, but I've added it above. If the copyright isn't a problem (which I'm sure it is) I say let's use the real logo. Otherwise, text.--HereToHelp (talk) 14:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Right, own up people. Who deleted the panda image? Jellypuzzle 19:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I speedied it, because I had a feeling it was copy vio. If you got the full screen version and looked right in the corner (of the origonal image that mine was adapted from), you culd see a small copyright tag... Ian13ID:540053 20:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I am trying to find an alternative. Ian13ID:540053 20:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I thought as much. Never mind then. Next time I see a red panda I'll get a photo for us. Jellypuzzle 20:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

After searching on google, I found this one: http://www.linuxgraphic.org/albums/karabe/firefox.png →AzaToth 20:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I was unable to find any specific information regarding this image's licensing. The site contains references to "GNU" and "free software," so I suspect that that the images are available under an open license. I sent an e-mail inquiry (in French), and hopefully will receive a response soon.
In any case, the image in question doesn't scale well to 45x45. The tail portion, however, does. I flipped it and combined it with the globe image to create this icon. If/when I'm told by a representative of LinuxGraphic.org that the source image is compatibly licensed, I'll upload the composite icon to Wikipedia. —David Levy 21:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
It's no red panda but that tail graphic really isn't half bad. I'd vote for it. Jellypuzzle 22:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I personally feel Image:Firefox01.png is suitable enough, it is not confusingly similar to the real logo, nor does it break wikipedia policy. I still am trying to find a red panda though. Ian13ID:540053 22:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

There are plenty on Wikimedia Commons by the look of things. Would one of those be editable? Dear oh dear, 'tis 22:45 and I'm discussing Ailurus fulgens. Time for bed methinks. Let us hope this is all settled by 2006. Jellypuzzle 22:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:RedPanda.jpg Is quite good if someone could crop it to just the head. Ian13ID:540053 23:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I created a new icon from Image:Ailurus fulgens.jpg. I removed the grass that covered part of the red panda's face.
Incidentally, in my opinion, Image:Firefox01.png strongly resembles a raccoon (and not a particularly attractive one). —David Levy 23:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, here I made one that is a compromize :) Image:Firefox.png →AzaToth 00:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

To me, that still looks like an ugly raccoon. :-) —David Levy 00:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I still don't see what's wrong with the real logo. Alright, I'll drop my "confusingly similar" argument, but according to this Mozilla website page I see "Put one or more of these buttons on your website to help us spread the word about Firefox. We appreciate it!" So what's the problem? Maybe it shouldn't be fair use.--HereToHelp (talk) 01:30, 31 --HereToHelp (talk) 04:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
The problem is that the letter of the policy (rather than the spirit) is being bureaucratically enforced. —David Levy 01:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't like any of the Images portaying a real or plush animal figure, would prefer the official logo if we can get past it's permissions issues. xaosflux Talk/CVU 01:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Agree entirely with above user. David Levy—tell me if I'm leaping to false conclusions—the image should not be fair use but rather a category all by itself, because although the image is copyrighted and not public domain, it is not fair use as it should be able to be used outside of article namespace. There was a {{Firefox}} but it was deleted. I say use it; the user that deleted it (Jtkiefer) has said that he won't enfore it because of all the opposition.--HereToHelp (talk) 02:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this type of image should belong to a separate category. Indeed, no fair use claim is being made.
The {{firefox}} template survived a TfD debate, so Jtkiefer should not have deleted it (even if its application is in limbo). I've undeleted it.
I honestly believe that this is a perfect situation for WP:IAR. —David Levy 03:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
The spirit of the policy is to keep the use of unfree images to a minimum, I don't see how keeping them out of userspace violate that in any way. --Sherool (talk) 03:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Finally, two users who agree with me! I've gone ahead and put the undeleted template into use.--HereToHelp (talk) 04:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to move the template to {{Mozilla}} because it applies to Mozilla Thunderbird as well. the Thunderbird logo is released with an identical license.--HereToHelp (talk) 04:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

In regard to the recent suggestion of WP:IAR, I shall quote a part from the page itself: "Ignoring all rules is about cutting through red tape to construct an encyclopedia." Please tell me how userpage images apply to constructing an encyclopedia. I could see if we were discussing using this image on a page about Firefox; then yes, it would be needed because it is a helpful addition. IAR is not meant for userpages, it's meant for actual content. Eightball 06:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC) Defining logic since 1988

I disagree. Encyclopedias don't construct themselves. The community spirit is the glue that holds this site together, and every little bit of needless bureaucracy chips away at the community spirit.
Instead of arguing that user pages are unimportant, how about explaining why we should follow a rule purely for the sake of following the rule? Or do you believe that there's another reason why the Mozilla images shouldn't be used in this context? —David Levy 06:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, I think wikimedia are trying to cut unfree images to a minimum, and they only allow fair use because it will help to benefit the encyclopedia, using them on userpages can just create more problems, its just twisting WP:IAR in my opinion... Ian13ID:540053 10:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
This is not a claim of fair use. —David Levy 16:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Right, I gave it a go myself as everyone else seems to be trying. Feel free to delete and/or criticise. Image:Wikifox.png. Jellypuzzle 12:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I am personally stuggling to make out the forground image. Ian13ID:540053 13:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't like it, but that's my bias because I'm insisting on the real logo or text. Also: {{Mozilla}} is only for Mozilla images, NOT for the free emulations you guys are making. I say that the real image is fine, and I agree that encyclopedias do not write themselves. The community pages are vital; if it wasn't for this talk page the template would be a mess. It's fine. Really. Mozilla gave permission, so let's IAR and just make this happen. It's the bureaucracy that is hindering us here, and Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. So, like IAR says, let's cut through the red tape and use the real image. Is there anyone here that thinks that , barring copyright, the real image is NOT preferable? --HereToHelp (talk) 13:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, ignoring the red panda obsession for a while, I too think the best logo would be the official one. Now with {{Mozilla}} it seems to me the issues with that are sorted too. If that still isn't fine (or even if it is come to think of it) there are so many other userbox icons out there that are much more problematic. Not even going as far as things like the original Template:User_Photoshop (now reverted back to text), what about all the sports team logos out there? Jellypuzzle 14:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I think we're going to wind up with the real image because the copyright issue is more or less cleared up, and that was the only obstacle. That's why I asked above: there's no reason besides copyright not to use the official logo, and copyright is resolved. It always has been, really. Perhaps we can ask Mozilla for a better copy of the image (read: transparent background).--HereToHelp (talk) 14:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
If someone {{mozilla}} tags the image, I have no issue with it. Providing {{mozilla}} is supported by the community. Ian13ID:540053 14:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
A transparent background would display improperly for Microsoft Internet Explorer users (among others). As much as I appreciate the irony, that really should be avoided. —David Levy 16:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

It passed a TFD, I call that support. And the real image is {{Mozilla}} tagged. Again, a better copy is preferable, but I'll go ahead and implement the real image.--HereToHelp (talk) 15:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Wonderful. Let's hope it stays. I suggest we include a summary of this debate somewhere obvious so that the template doesn't just get reverted by someone who doesn't feel like reading this whole discussion. Well, provided we've reached consensus. Jellypuzzle 15:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
To be accurate, the TfD debate ended with no consensus. Of course, much of the opposition was based upon "a strict interpretation of a certain rule" (to quote WP:IAR). —David Levy 16:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah the vote was 5 delete and 4 keep so it was kept. But I'd hardly call it a resounding support or good leverage in a poly to overturn existing rules. If it was just this one image I wouldn't rely care, but if this is allowed there will be no end to it, after all if you can ignore WP:FU and WP:UP here, why should other be made to abide by them? Next thing you know there are 200+ "special case" image templates that all argue that in this particular case the rules don't apply and so on. As if the image situation wasn't a bit enough mess already. We have rules on this alrady, work to change them (on a "global" level) if you wish, but please follow them instead of trying to get around it by re-defining the image to no longer be fair use (now there is an example of following the letter of the rule rather than the spirit). We have two kinds of images around here, free and unfree, if it's free than it's free, if it's unfree it should either be deleted or used under fair use in articles, I do not support complicating it further just to allow "eye candy" on userpages. --Sherool (talk) 17:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
1. No one is arguing that Wikipedians should be permitted to place whatever images they please on their user pages (or even that fair use should come into play at all). If, however, the copyright holder has provided consent, I see absolutely no harm.
2. Please explain how this constitutes an attempt to invoke the fair use doctrine.
3. WP:IAR isn't about ignoring rules that should be followed; it's about performing "actions [that are] reasonable, even if they might be against a strict interpretation of a certain rule." Please explain why the inclusion of Mozilla icons on user pages is unreasonable (aside from the fact that it's "against a strict interpretation of a certain rule"). Please cite one logical reason why the rule should apply here, other than the fact that it exists. —David Levy 17:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Since the background colour is orange, it is likely this is the only place the image will be used, therefore could the image be resized to a slightly smaller version (i.e. 100px square), inline with mozilla restrictions over use of the image (they don;t like high resolution images externally). Thanks! Ian13ID:540053 16:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I have also added a <noinclude> note to the template regarding the image. Ian13ID:540053 16:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I saved a copy of Image:MozillaFirefoxLogo.png (which lacked the annoying shadow, or whatever that's supposed to be) before it was deleted. I slapped on an orange background and snipped the empty border. —David Levy 17:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you think you could putit back on a clear (NOT WHITE) background that could be used elsewhere?--HereToHelp (talk) 18:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Never mind that. We need to follow the rules pointed out below.--HereToHelp (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

David, my point and I think the point of the Fair Use rule is that the Mozilla logo is copyrighted, and they would theoretically at any time decide that they don't wish to allow us to use it; therefore, it is only appropriate to use it in situations where it is deemed Fair Use and not, say, user boxes that are essentially worthless. Eightball 18:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I do not think that the Firefox logo policy is going to change in the near future. We do, however, need to respect the guidelines laid out below. I think that this color scheme would work because it places the logo on a dark, navy blue background (it needs to be against something dark or light, not necessarily black and white). The only problem is that we need a copy of the logo with shadow and trademark with a transparent back. I can get us one with a solid black backing, would anyone like that?--HereToHelp (talk) 18:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I feel the real logo should not be used. It is copyrighted, and they can subject it to the terms they wish, and hence the restrictions on fair use. Since this will not beneift the encyclopedia, I say the real logo should NOT be used. We have enough alternatives. Go for an image. And alternative ones can be made as well if we so wish. Ian13ID:540053 18:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I propoose Image:Firefox.png is used, and it is ended here. Ian13ID:540053 18:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I think that any logo besides the real one will confuse people. If the real one doesn't work out, let's stick with text.--HereToHelp (talk) 18:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't really feel the official logo should be used, so I therefore vote for text if I must choose between them. Ian13ID:540053 19:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Text, fine. I still think that the logo is worth pursuing. In the meantime: would the Firefox navy blue and orange work better than the (more traditional) orange and light orange? I think it does, but I'm content just to have that color scheme on my userpage and leave the template as is.--HereToHelp (talk) 19:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

An alternative is now available at: Template:User firefox1 Ian13ID:540053 19:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I respect your right to use the raccoon globe, but template forks (within the template namespace) generally should be avoided. (Otherwise, we could end up with dozens of versions.) —David Levy 19:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Okay, i will merge it in. However, I will keep an eye on this template that copyright and wikipedia rules are not infringed. Ian13ID:540053

Mozilla logo guidelines

The current logo violate Mozillas logo use guidelines. If you are going to be arguing that you have theyr permission to use it then I'd suggest you actualy follow the rules they have made. Those are naturaly not legaly bunding (I believe fair use give some wiggle room), but seeng as we are aparently using this not under fair use but because they would like us to, it seems odd to ignore how they want theyr logo to be used. Some points being:

  • Note that the shadow is part of the logo and should not be excluded.
  • The logo must include the copyright (©) symbol.
  • The Firefox logo is to be displayed in its entirety on either a solid light or dark background (avoid mid-tone or strongly colored backgrounds).
  • The Firefox logo may be displayed on its own without the accompanying “Mozilla Firefox” text. When displayed with the accompanying “Mozilla Firefox” text, it must be displayed in one of the following two arrangements.
    • When displayed with the Firefox logo, the product name “Mozilla Firefox” should be rendered in the MetaBoldLF-Roman font in the appropriate size in relation to the logo as indicated in the figures above. [see the actual page]
    • The wordmark must include the registered trademark (®) symbol.

Just to name a few.

Also to quote http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/faq.html

Can I modify your logos and distribute the result?
No, sorry. The logo files themselves (e.g. the ones distributed with the apps) are copyrighted, and so making and distributing any derivative works would be a copyright infringement. The logo's also a trademark, and so if the result is confusingly similar to the original, it's a violation of trademark law too.

So basicaly this modified logo violate Mozilla copyright/trademark, Mozilla logo use guidelines and IMHO Wikipedia guidelines, so I've removed it. If you want to argue that you have Mozillas permission be sure to at least follow theyr rules to the letter if you want to insist Wikipedia rules somehow doesn't apply, wich I still very much disagree with. See what I mean about these images not beeing so unproblematic as some suggest? --Sherool (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. You were justified and going back to text (although I've changed the text itself) and we will work to follow these guide;ines. Everybody, back to work!--HereToHelp (talk) 18:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Is it really this important to have the real logo. I think we should just go for one of the free alternatives. Ian13ID:540053 18:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, thanks for bringing this to our attention. The shadow and background colors are genuine concerns, but I'll point out that none of Mozilla's official buttons include the copyright (©) symbol. —David Levy 19:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it's best to use the real logo or text. If I could only get a good copy of the log0 everything would resolve itself, but a stand-alone logo is not on the page where they would be if they had it. Should someone email Mozilla or something? Say that it's for Wikipedia?--HereToHelp (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Why? Why is it worth so much hastle (when people could be doing other stuff), just for something which has copyright restrictions imposed, twists Wikipedia policy, buts WP in danger for future (if mozilla policy were changed) copyright violations, when there are a nice selection of alternatives around? Ian13ID:540053 19:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Because, as stated above, any other logo (I think) would confuse people.--HereToHelp (talk) 19:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I believe that you're greatly exaggerating the perils of using this logo. If Mozilla's policy changes, we can simply remove it. What's the problem? —David Levy 19:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
No, I agree with you. Any logo besides the offcial one would be problematic.--HereToHelp (talk) 20:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I was addressing Ian. —David Levy 20:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry.--HereToHelp (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Any opinions regarding this attempt?

Image:Mozilla Firefox logo.png This user contributes using Mozilla Firefox.




—David Levy 19:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


HTH just uploaded a new version of the above image, accompanied by the following edit summary:

Technically a new image (from this source) with slightly wider black margins as to not cut off the edge of the logo, which must be displayed in its entirety. Also added © symbol: the one in the offcia

1. How was the edge of the logo being cut off?

2. As I noted above, none of Mozilla's official buttons include the copyright symbol (which isn't even identifiable at this size).

3. Your file is poorly compressed. (Look at the size difference.) —David Levy 19:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

There were little edges, really, it was knitpick. The copyright, even if invisible, is still there as a few white pixels and in the full size image it is visible. besides, it's required, see above. I'm sorry about the size. As for the template itself, how about going with Firefox colors:
Image:Mozilla Firefox logo.png This user contributes using Mozilla Firefox.



The issue is that you can't see the links; further rcomments?--HereToHelp (talk) 19:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, none of Mozilla's official buttons include the copyright symbol (presumably because a gray dot serves no purpose other than to uglify the image). I've shrunk the image down to the required dimensions, so the "full size" display no longer is an issue.
No offense, but I dislike the dark blue userbox. In addition to rendering the text virtually unreadable, this color clashes terribly with black. The shade of blue that I used is taken directly from the logo (so it is one of the "Firefox colors"). —David Levy 20:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I realize that the images do not have the © sign, but if you look at the copy of the logo guidelines (above), it says "The logo must include the copyright (©) symbol." So that's that, mozilla says so. As for the coloring, how about this:
No, that isn't that. Those are general guidelines (intended to cover a broad range of circumstances). This particular guideline obviously doesn't apply to this situation, given the fact that Mozilla itself has decided to waive it. —David Levy 21:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Image:Mozilla Firefox logo.png This user contributes using Mozilla Firefox.




--HereToHelp (talk) 20:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I tried to revert the image but it came out pixelated; I unreverted it. Should I upload it again?--HereToHelp (talk) 20:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Your browser was displaying a cached version of the smaller image at the larger size. (You needed to reload the page.) But please, just leave the image alone. A gray dot serves no practical purpose.
The black/orange userbox isn't bad, but it evokes a Halloween vibe. —David Levy 21:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Glad you like it. Although the gray dot doesn't do much, it still is required by Mozilla, see above. Personaly, I don't mind. The other thing: a Halloween vibe is nice (or may not be, depending on who you ask), but I'd like some form of navy blue in there, too. I do have a navy border. I'm still wondering if anyone could see if they can put this on a navy, or even better, transparent, background. I don't think so though, the back is part of the image (at least the one I downloaded).--HereToHelp (talk) 21:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
You seem to have overlooked my other reply: "Those are general guidelines (intended to cover a broad range of circumstances). This particular guideline obviously doesn't apply to this situation, given the fact that Mozilla itself has decided to waive it."
As I previously explained to you, when working with PNG-24 images (which these are), transparent backgrounds do not display properly for most users. —David Levy 21:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't want to argue, I don't want to get into an edit war, all I ask is that you look at this link and explain how Mozilla waived having the © symbol.--HereToHelp (talk) 21:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
They waived that guideline by excluding the copyright symbol from all of the images that they actively encourage people to use for this purpose. —David Levy 22:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
This is true.--HereToHelp (talk) 22:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Also: try this template:
[discarded]
How do you like this one?--HereToHelp (talk) 21:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
The shadow is missing. —David Levy 22:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Dang! Was it missing for all of them? If we're ignoring the ©, can we get past this or not? Thought so.--HereToHelp (talk) 22:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Black is the only background color for which this isn't an issue, beause the shadow doesn't show up (as seen on Mozilla's website, from which this icon was copied). —David Levy 23:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

New and improved attempt

Image:Mozilla Firefox logo blue.png This user contributes using Mozilla Firefox.




Complete with shadow. —David Levy 23:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Touche. I uploaded that into Photoshop, changed the background, and it still doesn't work. I'll try again, but would it be too much trouble to to the same thing with a navy color?--HereToHelp (talk) 00:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
See below. —David Levy 02:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
The problem with yours is that that's a mid-tone background, which isn't allowed.--HereToHelp (talk) 00:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
What qualifies as "dark" is a matter of opinion. The shade of blue that I selected seems dark enough to me. (It's darker than the shade of gray that Mozilla uses in some of its official buttons. In fact, I would describe that as a "mid-tone.") —David Levy 02:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, what about this one:

Image:Mozilla Firefox logo dark blue.png This user contributes using Mozilla Firefox.




Interesting. Nope, still not there yet...--HereToHelp (talk) 00:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I tried almost the same color scheme a couple of weeks ago, and people didn't like it. In retrospect, I agree that the shade of orange is too bright. —David Levy 02:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I liked it.--HereToHelp (talk) 14:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Update

In case anyone is interested in using this icon, I'm still attempting to determine the copyright status of the image from which the tail portion was derived. I received an e-mail from André Pascual of LinuxGraphic.org, who informed me that the site has no uniform copyright policy, so it's up to the individual image creators to set the restrictions. None are listed for this particular image, so I've requested the appropriate contact information. —David Levy 22:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

No offense or anything, but I think we've moved on to the real logo.--HereToHelp (talk) 00:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
It can't hurt to have an alternative icon to fall back on. —David Levy 02:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

How's this?

Image:Mozilla Firefox logo dark blue.png This user contributes using Mozilla Firefox.
Image:Mozilla Firefox logo dark blue.png This user contributes using Mozilla Firefox.




—David Levy 02:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I like the second - I cant see the copyright blob though. And changing the bg may be viewed as changing mozillas image. I say a png of origional clear background should be used... Ian13ID:540053 12:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree, but it's hard to get transparent PNG images, and whatever I get from Mozilla comes out with a black background.--HereToHelp (talk) 14:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Please read the above discussions. Regarding the copyright symbol, Mozilla itself has opted not to include it in any of their official buttons, so it's obvious that they've waived the requirement in this context. (At this size, it appears as nothing more than a few gray pixels.) Regarding the background, alpha transparency (the only type that accommodates Mozilla's shadow) displays improperly for most users (not Firefox users, of course). And even without the shadow, the use of a 24-bit color palette (instead of an 8-bit palette, which would reduce the icon's quality) would have the same effect. It's perfectly okay to change the file (otherwise, we wouldn’t be permitted to shrink it), and Mozilla explicitly sanctions displaying its logo on a dark background.
I'll go ahead and implement the second version for now. It's the closest to the current design, and I just tweaked the shade of orange (presently used for the sidebox) to bring it slightly closer to the current main section shade. —David Levy 17:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, the second, with a light orange color scheme, looks best. And is using the official logo set for sure now? — TheKMantalk 18:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Apparently. I wish we could have a transparent background, but your arguemnt above is duely noted, you need not repeat it. But besides, it's not our fault it doesn't display on the inferior browsers. Whoops—there goes NPOV, although you can bend things on talk pages. Also: even if the copyright sign isn't displayed on Mozilla's site nor properly in the image, wouldn't it be better just to put it in the image? Even if they don't follow their rules on thier site, they still want us to have the sign. If you'll only see a few pixels in the userbox, what's the problem? (I already understand that they don't do it, but does that make their request invalid?) I think it's best to just go ahead and pu it there; there's nothing wrong with complying with the copyright holder (gasp!).--HereToHelp (talk) 23:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Are you seriously suggesting that we add a 3x3 gray dot to the image? What practical purpose would that serve? —David Levy 23:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
All I'm saying is that Mozilla wants us to have it there. Do we practice what they preach or what they practice? Because I'm tired of preaching what they preach.--HereToHelp (talk) 23:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I see no evidence that Mozilla wants us to have it there. As it is, we already are practicing more than what they practice, by following other "visual identity guidelines" that they deliberately ignore via some of their official promotional buttons ["The Firefox logo is to be displayed in its entirety on either a solid light or dark background (avoid mid-tone or strongly colored backgrounds)."]
And again, it wouldn't even be a copyright symbol. It would be this. —David Levy 00:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
It would be there in the full size image. or (you probably assumed this all along) is the image going to be usrbox sized? If it is...alright, I capitulate.--HereToHelp (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
The image is userbox-sized. I mentioned this to you in an earlier reply.  :-) —David Levy 03:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, your version. Would it be possible to keep a larger one where the © symbol would be clear on the Image:whatever page, and then scale it down?--HereToHelp (talk) 23:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, buy not without reducing both the visual quality and the compression efficiency of the userbox version (because the MediaWiki scaling isn't perfect). —David Levy 23:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
True. Alright, if you insist, we won't have the © symbol. But if Mozilla comes around and wants answers...--HereToHelp (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

my own comments

I know that deleting the reply is considered vandalism, but I shouldn't have vented like that. I'm slapping my own wrist for violating WP:CIV (probably my first outburst on here) - if anyone would like to take it up further, see my talk page User_talk:JohnDBuell. I apologize to anyone I might have offended, I'm just a bit frustrated is all. --JohnDBuell 16:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC) Again, I will be making no further comments here, please post replies at my talk page only.

Alternative Mozilla Firefox logo

Image:Mozilla Firefox (alternative logo design).svg Just found an alternative Firefox logo wich is under public domain. (Found it on the Open Clipart Library project). -  havarhen  | Talk 18:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:Mozilla Firefox (alternative logo design).svg This user contributes using Mozilla Firefox.



  • Interesting. (contrast seems a bit off) — TheKMantalk 18:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

While not derived directly from the official logo, this seems similar enough to constitute trademark infringement. It falls short of duplicating the quality of the real thing, and I'm fairly certain that Mozilla would oppose its use. —David Levy 19:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Until we get the real image worked out, let's stick with text. Interesting find though.--HereToHelp (talk) 23:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Another copy of the real image!

Look what I found: Image:Mozilla-firefox-55x55.png, which renders as: Image:Mozilla-firefox-55x55.png

So...

Image:Mozilla-firefox-55x55.png This user contributes using Mozilla Firefox.

I don't know what happened to the border, it it looks add, but I thought I'd bring it up.--HereToHelp (talk) 01:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The shadow is messed up because the image file was created improperly. (The background is transparent, but the shadow is solid.) And again, 24-bit PNG files containing transparencies display improperly for most users. This is how your example looks in Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0 for Windows. —David Levy 02:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Ick. Good to know about this image, though.--HereToHelp (talk) 02:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Why? (I'm just curious.) —David Levy 02:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Just as a backup, and for encyclopedia namespace (it looks fine on white backgrounds)--HereToHelp (talk) 12:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi all, I'm the guy that improperly made that image. A properly made version would be appreciated, but it's not too important. The purpose of that image is to fit in with the set of 55px free software related icons that decorate Portal:Free software. If there's a real reason to delete that image, it can be deleted. I wouldn't want to get Wikipedia in trouble, but just now I had to revert someone putting a deletion tag on it under the false claim that it wasn't used anywhere. My understanding is that if a certain use a logo is fair use, then the trademark/copyright holder has zero control over people using it in that way. Since wikipedia policy indicates that using a logo in an article is fair use, then this logo can be used in articles. I don't have the legal grounding to question or confirm the wikipedia policy, I just follow it. Gronky 19:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

SVG Image

How does Image:User_firefox_icon.svg sound? If the background color needs to change, I can press a few keys and have it changed. This was modified from the OpenClipart page, which was in the public domain. Zach (Smack Back) 05:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather use the ugly raccoon puppet. —David Levy 05:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Interesting, but it looks like we are working on the real image. A backup can't hurt, though.--HereToHelp (talk) 12:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Probably before we work on the real image, we probably should merge this and {{User:The Raven's Apprentice/Userboxes/User Firefox}}, since I am starting to see now templates and userboxes of various types duplicating each other. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 19:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Several attempts to merge {{User:The Raven's Apprentice/Userboxes/User Firefox}} have failed, Ian Moody (talk · contribs) reverted.
Hmm..Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 20:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Apologies for the distruption, however I merely wanted a stable, seperate text only userbox that wasn't constantly changing, and then anyone who wanted an image one could use this one. Another reason for a text only one is I wanted consistancy between all my userboxes, which at the time all had text in the left box. — Ian Moody (talk) 13:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Template:User firefox → Template:User browser:Firefox – Standard name formatting for browser userboxes (see Wikipedia:Userboxes/Computing#Browsers).

Voting

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

Discussion

Add any additional comments
  • I support because it's standard. Just dont make it part of {{User browser}} because it would be incompatible with Babel.--HereToHelp (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid I don't understand your comment. Not only is it part of User browser but it doesn't break babel. I use {{User:The Raven's Apprentice/Userboxes/User Firefox}} in my babel box with no problem. — Ian Moody (talk) 23:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I mean how in {{User religion}}, if you go to edit it you have one for each religion. You add the right one by doing {{User religion|your faith}}, but when done in Babel it doesn;t work due to the pipe character ("|").--HereToHelp (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Ah I see you what you mean now. I think judging from the notice on the template {{User browser}} has stopped doing that and has switched to seperate templates for each browser. — Ian Moody (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Move completed

  • The template move was deliberately prevented by Cool Cat's inappropriate edit to the redirect page (which created a revision history). I've rectified the matter. —David Levy 01:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

What's going on?

i'm getting weird-looking stuff on my user page due to this redirect (scroll to the right). appzter 22:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Cool Cat decided to muck everything up by moving the template. I've put up a request for it to be moved back to its page but obviously we'll have to wait. I've fixed your userpage though. — Ian Moody (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
This also got my attention and made me realise you folks are still here debating this. The link's fixed now anyhows. I suppose it's slightly funny that this has gone on for so long. I might read what I've missed tomorrow and try and contribute again. Jellypuzzle | Talk 23:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Cool cat tried to revert Ian moddy's move, since that left double redirects all over the place, however he moved it back to the wrong place, should be sorted now. Ian13ID:540053 14:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Umm, I corrected all the double redirects after I moved the template. Cool Cat on the other hand failed to do so both times he moved the template. Please don't make false statements. — Ian Moody (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This template is also mucking up the formatting of my user page, see this diff. I don't know what to do about it since the template is locked and the old one has been deleted so I can't compare the formatting. :( —gorgan_almighty 14:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I've been able to fix this problem by userifying the Mozilla Firefox userbox (here). Perhaps my corrected version should be copied into the main template? My modification is a follows. —gorgan_almighty 14:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
{{userbox
    |border-c=#073c70
    |id-c=#073c70
    |info-c=#ffb660
    |id=[[Image:Mozilla Firefox logo dark blue.png]]
    |info=This user [[:Category:Firefox users|contributes]] using '''[[Mozilla Firefox|Mozilla Firefox]]'''.<includeonly>[[Category:Firefox users|{{PAGENAME}}]]</includeonly>
  }}

Right, as I've become one of the many people suffering from Userbox Related Stress (URS) due to this week's debates and the constant automatic reshuffling of my userpage, I've decided to remove the Firefox one from it and stop watching this discussion. If anyone wants to let me know when it's all sorted out, I'd be very grateful. Hope you reach some sort of suitable consensus in the not too distant future. Jellypuzzle | Talk 18:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

image removal

I have removed the image as per the limitations of the rights given to use by Fair Use and by Wikipedia's guidelines at WP:FU. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 02:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought the image wasn't being used under fair use. Instead the {{mozilla}} reasoning was being used. -Scm83x 10:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
{{mozilla}} is the same thing as {{logo}} for our purposes. It's not a free image license, since it doesn't allow modification, so the only way our long-standing policies allow us to continue hosting the image is under free use. —Cryptic (talk) 16:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Unless, of course, we ignore one rule. —David Levy 16:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
{{mozilla}} is a claim of fair use. in this case it clearly does not apply.Geni 16:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
No, it is not a claim of fair use. It's a claim of permission. Granted, this contradicts a Wikipedia policy, but I don't believe that this is the sort of situation that the authors had in mind. —David Levy 16:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, this is an application of IAR.--HereToHelp (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
No amount of use of IAR will get us off the hook, since copyright law cannot be ignored, even on here. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 21:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
trick it's not with permission in the sense we normaly use it on the other hand a really don't feel like cheacking x number of user pages to see if it is being used to promote firefox.Geni 21:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
We're not ignoring copyright law, we're ignoring Wikipedia guideline. Mozilla has given permission.--HereToHelp (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
For comercial use?Geni 23:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
The quotes on {{Mozilla}} say nothing about commercial use.--HereToHelp (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
that is the problem. Digging through thier FAQ suggests that they allow it to be used under fair use or for non comercial reasons. Useing it on a wikipedia use page is only allowable if it is allowed to be used for comercial use.Geni 23:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
If that is the case, then the image needs to be deleted based on an email from Jimbo Wales in May of 2005, saying that all Non-commercial images are to be deleted. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 23:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Jimbo also endorsed WP:IAR —David Levy 04:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
We cannot use this logo on userpages, as per policy/license. Barring a good reason given otherwise, I will text-ify the template in about 24-hours (so if you want to do a replacement logo, now's the time!) --Improv 02:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Here are some good reasons:
1. This is the subject of an ongoing dispute that has resulted in page protection by an uninvolved party. It's inappropriate to make related edits or to unprotect the template at this juncture.
2. I've yet to read one logical reason to remove the image, other than "because the rules say so." If you or someone else can cite actual harm that otherwise will result, this will change matters.
3. Thus far, the {{mozilla}} template's current deletion debate has drawn more than twice as many "keep" votes as delete votes (including the nominator). Among those voting "keep" is Theresa Knott, a member of Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee. —David Levy 04:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, that level of indentation was getting ridiculous. [ This page went further towards the end--HereToHelp (talk)] In response, it is appropriate to remove the image because the image is contrary to very clear policy, with no interpretation necessary. I am not talking about deleting the template, which Kelly Martin and Tony Sidaway have been involved in -- that involves some judgement as to the meaning of different policies. The reason to delete the image is simple, and it is a licensing issue:
    1. We cannot accept the terms on the firefox icon because they conflict with our policies on what kinds of licenses we can accept. We cannot accept either specific grants of use to Wikipedia nor usage that prohibits commercial usage
    2. We therefore are bypassing the license by claiming fair use on the images
    3. Fair use only gives us a certain amount of leeway in how we can use the image. This leeway allows us to use the image for articles, but not for user pages. Take a look at Wikipedia:Fair_use for the precise details.
  • Let's keep the discussion moving -- I'll leave the template be so long as we're still making meaningful progress on the topic. This is, however, a matter of law/core policy, so a vote is inappropriate, and it is possible there may be legal reprecussions for the project, so it's not in our interest to ignore this for long. --Improv 06:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I am not talking about deleting the template, which Kelly Martin and Tony Sidaway have been involved in -- that involves some judgement as to the meaning of different policies.
To be clear, the deletion debate to which I referred concerns the {{mozilla}} template — the one with which the images in question are tagged specifically for this purpose.
We cannot accept the terms on the firefox icon because they conflict with our policies on what kinds of licenses we can accept. We cannot accept either specific grants of use to Wikipedia nor usage that prohibits commercial usage
Sure we can, simply by ignoring the rules (in favor of common sense). The rules usually should be followed, but not purely for the sake of following them. I honestly believe that this sort of situation was not what the authors of said rules had in mind.
We therefore are bypassing the license by claiming fair use on the images
No, we aren't. This is not fair use, so that would violate copyright. We're bypassing the Wikipedia policy against images used by permission, but no law is being broken.
This is, however, a matter of law/core policy, so a vote is inappropriate, and it is possible there may be legal reprecussions for the project, so it's not in our interest to ignore this for long.
By all means, please cite these potential legal repercussions. —David Levy 07:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
please show exactly where we have permission to use these images in a comercial manner. Furthermore please show where we have permission to allow reusers to do the same.Geni 12:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
David, I normally am made a bit queasy about IAR, as, I think, most people on the project are. It can be made to justify anything, and in cases where it is taken way too far leads to a kind of attitude that is extremely off-putting to others on the project. Kelly Martin, for example, has indicated that she doesn't even bother reading policy because she's acting in the best interests of Wikipedia. While I trust her to actually do so, in the end when enough people do that it leads to horrible chaos when disagreements happen as to what those best interests are. An entire community of that would be very disruptive. At the same time, there are certain areas where normal concerns for due process cannot hold - when dealing with licensing issues or other legal affairs or core tenets of the project, there is considerably less role for discussion or consensus. If, for example, right after a major terrorist attack, people had a massive vote to insert phrases like "X is a shithead" into the article of the person believed to be behind the attack, it would still not be considered encyclopedic, even if the masses went that way, and should be deleted and locked by any admin. Likewise, no matter what the community thinks, if something puts the project in legal jeopardy, we cannot do it. Finally, if people suddenly decide that it'd be keen to start using user pages as personal webpages or a BLOG, we should not permit that either, even if all of livejournal showed up on our doorstep and wanted to vote on it, overwhelming our normal consensus mechanism. I suppose my point is that I am not trying to be a jerk, nor to even be particularly questionable. This is a legal issue, and it's important to get it right. Moving back to specific objections:
As I understand, you're suggesting that we not use "fair use" licensing, instead using the images under the offered noncommercial license offered by the Mozilla foundation. This avoids the worries about legal appropriateness of fair use for userspace. Unfortunately, it has ill effects for things that have been considered priorities by the foundation that have decided how our license policy works. There is a concern for freedom -- the wikipedia project's data dumps is, in theory, supposed to be loadable and usable by anyone for any purpose, commercial or not. We've been doing our best to make a good faith effort (legally speaking) to keep that true, and things like this fly in the face of that. Noncommercial licenses could cause Wikipedia mirrors to need to be taken down by a single letter from someone who makes any specially licensed content, and that makes our project a lot less useful. Consider also that companies are starting to embed Wikipedia into handheld devices for portable use. If we're not careful about licenses, that will come back to bite them, preventing such projects from bearing fruit. Allowing restricted-use licenses was also decided to not be in the spirit of the GFDL nor aiming for the kinds of liberties that we hope to see in the project. Note finally that this license is decided policy, so if you want to see that policy change, go over there and try to start something to rework it. I believe Jimbo has declared by fiat some large aspects of the policy, so changing this may not be permitted, but you can give it a shot and if you win, you might have your way on this issue. Until then, I don't think IAR permits you to ignore those rules, especially on a topic like licensing that has broader implications for the project. To be safe, we should remove the image, and you can add it back later if policy is changed to permit it. --Improv 15:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Any handheld reference like the one you mentioned would not include userpages. Mozilla has allowed us to use this. I see the dangers of described by the "one exception leads to the next" argument, but I disagree. More exceptions should be made if the image has been released under copyright similar to Mozilla's. The facxt of the matter is that you can't paint with one brush.--HereToHelp (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Again, we have decided their license is not permitted by general policy. I intend to change the template to use the LGPL image sometime later today unless you have anything else to say.--Improv 14:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Temporary stable text only version

Would anyone else be in favour of creating a stable text only version at {{User:Blast san/userboxes/User browser:Firefox text}} or something similar until a consensus has been reached on this one. The text would also lack the formatting problems the current image version seems to have if it is outside a babel box. I think this is needed, at least as a temporary measure, especially as for users like Jellypuzzle who can no longer use the template due to its image and formatting problems. — Ian Moody (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Great Idea Ghandir 22:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

What about

The variation used with the firefox package shipped with Ubuntu Linux [13]? Unfortunately, I'm not absolutely sure about the license/copyright status - I think it's GFDL, but I could be wrong. Still, it *might* be a feasible alternative. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 02:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I have a horible feeling we would be running into the GFDL/GPL issue and a really don't want to go there.Geni 03:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
The globe is released under a tri-license (MPL/GPL/LGPL), it's only the fox that is protected. →AzaToth 15:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
If this is true, and if we can verify this with the Mozilla foundation (we don't want to inherit sloppy license use), this would be an admirable solution to this specific issue. It doesn't solve the general problem of people not honouring license policy/licenses themselves, but it at least would make things better on this particular point. If someone can drop a note to the foundation and verify the license, we can get this changed over pretty quickly. --Improv 16:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
From http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/faq.html:

The Mozilla trademarks include, among others, the names Mozilla®, mozilla.org®, Firefox®, Thunderbird™, Bugzilla™, Camino™, Sunbird™ and Seamonkey™, as well as the Mozilla logo, Firefox logo, Thunderbird logo and the red lizard logo.
The default logos in CVS which are built into Firefox and Thunderbird by default (i.e. the globe without the fox, and the original blue bird) are explicitly not protected as Mozilla trademarks. The files themselves are available under the mozilla.org tri-license; you can do anything you like with them under those terms.
(The cute green dinosaur is not a Mozilla Foundation trademark either; its legal status is unclear, and we are moving away from using it.)

Excellent. Is this a solution that everyone is ok with? If so, this matter can be closed. --Improv 18:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
(Once we implement, of course) --Improv 19:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I have implemented the change. --Improv 19:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Odd spacing

The addition of the protected template also added an extra space to the top of the template. This is messing up my user page box alignment and I'm sure may be messing with others also. If the extra space could be removed, that'd be great :-) — Scm83x talk 10:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Same with mine. I guess it's that empty second line after <noinclude>{{protected}} </noinclude>. Can someone please remove that unneeded newline? Thank you. --Misza13 (Talk) 10:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

What a waste of time

"This page is 100 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size." Perhaps people should go and find something more useful to do. the wub "?!" 15:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Archiving, anyone? because it's now 106.--HereToHelp (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Text

Does anyone know the font used by the logo on Mozilla's webpage? They cannot copyright the font, and we could use that.

How about this template? The colors went a bit dark when I uploaded it, but otherwise it's ok.

Fx This user contributes using Mozilla Firefox.