Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An update on Mozilla's terms of use for Firefox

blog.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 381 posts

Re: An update on Mozilla's terms of use for Firefox

#301

Post by watusername »

KingOfCoders wrote: post #257
move-on-by wrote: post #4

> 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…

Getting $400M a year is not "commercially viable". But thanks for clearing this up that you want to sell my data. Switched to Waterfox (for now, hope for an independent fork) after 30+ years of Firefox.

There is no "independent fork," unless you consider the Chromium skins independent forks too.

Re: An update on Mozilla's terms of use for Firefox

#302

Post by yencabulator »

0xFEE1DEAD wrote: post #216
rtpg wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like there _is_ some daylight between what people hear when someone says "Firefox is selling your data" and, for example, Firefox using your IP address to put you in a rough country-level geoblock to determine whether to show you an ad that was sold to all users in a country. Yet the second one, which I think would be very much considered close to harmless from my perspective (compared to an alternative of "an…

I chose firefox because I don’t want my browser to build an ad network to sell targeted ads. And I definitely don't want this: > You give Mozilla the rights necessary to operate Firefox. This includes processing your data as we describe in the Firefox Privacy Notice. It also includes a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license for the purpose of doing as you request with the content you input in Firefox. This doe…

And I chose Librewolf because I didn't want that, either.

Re: An update on Mozilla's terms of use for Firefox

#303

Post by yencabulator »

brookst wrote: post #267
ttpphd wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Why is my browser serving me advertising in the first place? Because Mozilla is an advertising company now.

There are only two ways to generate revenue: direct and indirect. Nobody will pay for a browser. I don’t use Firefox and this whole thing is distasteful, but I’m not sure how they’re supposed to cover operating expenses without indirect monetization, or what for of indirect other than ads would work.

In the meanwhile, people are asking how to donate to Firefox not to Mozilla and it's CEOs whims and personal salary.

Re: An update on Mozilla's terms of use for Firefox

#304

Post by MaxBarraclough »

> we’ve removed the reference to the Acceptable Use Policy because it seems to be causing more confusion than clarity.

Weak sauce. Mozilla ought to be apologising here, not blaming its community for being upset at Mozilla's efforts to impose restrictions on its binaries that are in direct conflict with the core principles of Free and Open Source software.

We were discussing this yesterday. [0] It's not 'confusion'. We saw what they were up to, and we weren't happy about it.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43207456

Re: An update on Mozilla's terms of use for Firefox

#306

Post by yencabulator »

doright wrote: post #234
move-on-by wrote: post #4

> 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…

Mozilla had $1,006,854,000 invested at end of 2023. Drawing 5% of that annually for developer salaries would pay a lot of Firefox developer salaries, even with no incoming cash whatsoever. I'd like to believe a world exists between "Firefox is a volunteer-only effort" and "Mozilla CEO is yet another sociopath robber baron".

https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2024/mozilla-fdn-202...

Re: An update on Mozilla's terms of use for Firefox

#308

Post by yencabulator »

ho_schi wrote: post #148
chinathrow wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mozilla, then Phoenix, then Firefox user for over 27y or so. If they can't stop abusing their users, I will look for another browser, goddamnit.

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…

I'm still hoping for something to come out of Servo.

I honestly think we need to shift our trusted computing base off of C/C++. There's no way a ragtag bunch of volunteers puts enough effort into security when every minor mistake is a disaster :-(

Re: An update on Mozilla's terms of use for Firefox

#309

Post by ranger_danger »

Silhouette wrote: post #62
ranger_danger wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think if they believed there would be enough people to justify charging for the software to make that model work, they would do it. But I don't think it's actually viable, I think the number of people that would pay for firefox is much lower than you think. Consider how many other similarly popular software programs charge small fees for their app... I can't even think of a single one. And you can only really charg…

I don't expect a high proportion of people would pay for a browser. My point is that if you're starting at 200M users you don't need a high proportion. You just need a loyal core of fans who see enough value to play the "whale" role and prop up the rest. Given the kind of people that Firefox has traditionally appealed to in the first place I don't think that's an entirely unrealistic scenario. As for other apps - for…

> They're going to pay a modest amount without much thought

Highly disagree... I think if you've been providing a free and open source product to your loyal fans for over 20 years, then suddenly start charging for it, isn't going to get people stepping over each other to hand their money over.

Re: An update on Mozilla's terms of use for Firefox

#310

Post by inetknght »

brookst wrote: post #267
ttpphd wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Why is my browser serving me advertising in the first place? Because Mozilla is an advertising company now.

There are only two ways to generate revenue: direct and indirect. Nobody will pay for a browser. I don’t use Firefox and this whole thing is distasteful, but I’m not sure how they’re supposed to cover operating expenses without indirect monetization, or what for of indirect other than ads would work.

> Nobody will pay for a browser.

Speak for yourself.

Give me a browser that clearly and unambiguously does not sell my usage of it in any way, and I will give you a monthly subscription.

Post reply on HN