291–300 of 381 posts
Is Google paying Mozilla to sabotage themselves? Stay in business, so monopoly arguments can be brushed aside. But slowly erode privacy on the internet. And slowly lose user base.
They just lost a monopoly case because they paid Mozilla all that money, this theory has always made little sense and sticking to it now makes even less.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but the reason why I don’t and probably will not donate to Mozilla ever again is that I have no idea what hare-brained acquisition they’ll do next. You can't donate to Mozilla Corporation at all, which is the entity maintaining Firefox and running these acquisitions. You can only donate to the Mozilla Foundation , which funds other campaigns.
> You can't donate to Mozilla Corporation at all, which is the entity maintaining Firefox and running these acquisitions. You can only donate to the Mozilla Foundation, which funds other campaigns. The Mozilla Foundation is the parent of the Mozilla Corporation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wouldn't derivative aggregated information not be included in definitions like the one quoted because they specifically about personal data? If you sell the information how many customers you have and how many shoes you've sold last month, are you selling your customer's personal data?
> If you sell the information how many customers you have and how many shoes you've sold last month, are you selling your customer's personal data? To make that analogy fair for the scope of what Mozilla's doing, the shoe store would have to be selling data about what color shirts people are wearing when they visit the shoe store.
Firefox is installed on my computer, not on a VPS owned by Mozilla. I'm not browsing Mozilla website. Why are they entitled to record and share everything I do?
> The reason we’ve stepped away from making blanket claims that “We never sell your data” is because, in some places, the LEGAL definition of “sale of data” is broad and evolving. As an example, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) defines “sale” as the “selling, renting, releasing, disclosing, disseminating, making available, transferring, or otherwise communicating orally, in writing, or by electronic or othe…
Would it have been better if Firefox/Mozilla went under as a result of never compromising on their principles for income 5 years ago, as opposed to continuing to exist in this less than optimal form today? If the business incompetence of where to put all the existing money were resolved. I feel like the people who understand Mozilla's true principles have long since moved on by this point, and the crowd of those unaw…
Where to?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s a weird term, but I’m not sure how “for the purpose of doing as you request” is terrible. To me that means that when you type a url, they have the right to do a DNS lookup for it. Is there some interpretation where “for the purpose of doing as you request” means any purpose they want?
The problem is that I'm not requesting Mozilla do anything. Firefox isn't a "service" it's a web browser. When I input a seach query, _I_ am acting on my behalf, not Mozilla. I don't want any language where they get to insert themselves into that chain of behavior. Curl doesn't need a TOS, why does Firefox?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are only three viable web-engines left over from the second browser-war: * Blink (Google): Used in everything, from Chrome, Edge, Opera, Qt-Toolkit, Electron. * Gecko (Mozilla): Firefox. And Waterfox? I assume Gecko is still hard to integrate. * WebKit and WebKitGtk (Apple and Gtk): Safari, Epiphany and Gtk-Toolkit. Easy to integrate. And the only engine where I’m aware that actually two side actively cooperate…
Some more: * Librewolf, Palemoon, Falkon.
Palemoon is based on an outdated fork of Gecko.
Falkon uses QtWebEngine, which is Blink.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are only three viable web-engines left over from the second browser-war: * Blink (Google): Used in everything, from Chrome, Edge, Opera, Qt-Toolkit, Electron. * Gecko (Mozilla): Firefox. And Waterfox? I assume Gecko is still hard to integrate. * WebKit and WebKitGtk (Apple and Gtk): Safari, Epiphany and Gtk-Toolkit. Easy to integrate. And the only engine where I’m aware that actually two side actively cooperate…
WebKit is also used in Orion, but that browser is macOS/iOS only.
I'm worried that Mozilla is asserting it needs a license for the information input into Firefox for Firefox to do it's job, since that's factually untrue. So either Mozilla is genuinely confused about this point, which I find unlikely, or they have some ulterior motive. I can't say with any confidence what the ulterior motive is, but I can be pretty sure there is one, and that worries me about the future of the browser landscape.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And if everyone switches to Librewolf, Librewolf will die because Mozilla will no longer make money and won't be able to devote resources towards maintaining upstream Firefox. I use Firefox. I hate ads. I don't love that Mozilla engages in some level of affiliate deals to pay the bills, but it's the only viable alternative to Google controlling the entire web and doing much worse tracking/advertising at this point, u…
Na, Mozilla will die and Firefox and Thunderbird will get transferred to a community project, Thunderbird survived without Mozilla so will Firefox. Pretty sure that community project will get overwhelmingly big donations from all over.
> It also includes a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license for the purpose of doing as you request with the content you input in Firefox. I really struggle to understand what legal team believes this language is necessary in downloaded software. There is a lot of precedent for this kind of language in online hosted services, but not downloaded software. > This does not give Mozilla any ownership in that conte…
I actually disagree, fundamentally.
This is digital content, so "ownership" isn't the same as for physical stuff.
Lets look at analogies: "piracy isn't theft" (because the original owner still keeps their copy!). Also, surely if Mozilla can sell your data, they must have owned it first! But you also keep your data!
So clearly, to "own" digital stuff is different from "owning" physical stuff.
Then, how do we define "own" for digital stuff? I'd say a sufficient definition would be, "possess and can do whatever".
So when Mozilla says "nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license [...] necessary to operate Firefox", and then in subsequent paragraphs argue that selling ads is necessary to operate Firefox... Yes, we can add two and two together.
Now, apologists will claim that the literal statement in new terms is "nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license for the purpose of doing as you request with the content you input in Firefox", but obviously, the DO NOT NEED A LICENSE for doing as you request in Firefox (i.e. sending POST requests directly to third parties), so clearly there's some shady business involved.