a weird sold out of open culture lately.
Mozilla reverses course on its terms of use
11–20 of 33 posts
Re: Mozilla reverses course on its terms of use
#12To save you a click: this is just LWN quoting the Mozilla post from a few days ago.
The title is misleading.
I thought this was about Mozilla reverting the TOS to how they were before the whole thing started, because that's what the title sounds like.
But nope. This is about their (failed) damage control. You know, the post where they said:
> Mozilla doesn’t sell data about you (in the way that most people think about “selling data”)
Re: Mozilla reverses course on its terms of use
#13Kind of in a ranty mood today. I'd gladly pay to support development of Firefox if it were possible to fund it directly via something like a recurring subscription. Instead my only option is to donate to the Mozilla foundation which lists the following salaries for their executives (according to Charity Navigator): Mark Surman, President & Executive Director - $661,886 J Bob Alotta, Svp, Global Programs - $417,327 An…
Are those supposed to be high? What's a reasonable salary for executives? The same site lists the following salaries for American Red Cross: Gail Mcgovern, President & Ceo $859,260 Clifford Holtz, Chief Operating Officer $749,814 Chris Hrouda, President Of Biomedical Services $696,337 Shaun Gilmore, Chief Transformation Officer $619,929 Brian Rhoa, Chief Investment Officer $610,239 Is there any indication Mozilla's s…
Are those supposed to be high?
What's a reasonable salary for executives?
Is there any indication Mozilla's salaries are too high aside from "higher pay than FAANG engineers"?
Re: Mozilla reverses course on its terms of use
#14Mozilla is done. Organisations can't just lose 80%+ of the revenue they've budgeted around for years... Mozilla has no credible path to recovering their Google revenue without massive commercial monetisation schemes which their core clientele has no appetite for. Anyhow, for me it doesn't matter. Firefox is open in concept only, it's controlled by a weird NGO. I've switched to Vivaldi which is controlled by a company…
> Google revenue
For those who've lost track of that situation, can you provide a link or two?
Is Mozilla management looking at current national politics and figuring that antitrust pressure on Google is going to be nil for the next four years?
Re: Mozilla reverses course on its terms of use
#15Find a way to skip the overpaid Mozilla Foundation and we'll start contributing to Firefox.
Re: Mozilla reverses course on its terms of use
#16Kind of in a ranty mood today. I'd gladly pay to support development of Firefox if it were possible to fund it directly via something like a recurring subscription. Instead my only option is to donate to the Mozilla foundation which lists the following salaries for their executives (according to Charity Navigator): Mark Surman, President & Executive Director - $661,886 J Bob Alotta, Svp, Global Programs - $417,327 An…
[deleted]
Re: Mozilla reverses course on its terms of use
#17Mozilla is done. Organisations can't just lose 80%+ of the revenue they've budgeted around for years... Mozilla has no credible path to recovering their Google revenue without massive commercial monetisation schemes which their core clientele has no appetite for. Anyhow, for me it doesn't matter. Firefox is open in concept only, it's controlled by a weird NGO. I've switched to Vivaldi which is controlled by a company…
> Google revenue For those who've lost track of that situation, can you provide a link or two? Is Mozilla management looking at current national politics and figuring that antitrust pressure on Google is going to be nil for the next four years?
> For those who've lost track of that situation, can you provide a link or two?
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/06/technology/google-search-...
I mean, it's the same situation as last year. Google lost the lawsuit, got declared a monopoly, the DOJ said they'll force Google to stop paying Apple and Mozilla for placement on their devices/browser (for Mozilla that means losing $500 million in ARR), Google is appealing but as of right now it'll come into effect in the second half of 2025. Which is the impetus for Mozilla to try find a lot of extra revenue. Also Trump isn't a fan of Google so unlikely he'll save them. Although ironically, Apple and Mozilla are the biggest losers: Apple gets billions from Google and Mozilla $500 million.
Re: Mozilla reverses course on its terms of use
#18Kind of in a ranty mood today. I'd gladly pay to support development of Firefox if it were possible to fund it directly via something like a recurring subscription. Instead my only option is to donate to the Mozilla foundation which lists the following salaries for their executives (according to Charity Navigator): Mark Surman, President & Executive Director - $661,886 J Bob Alotta, Svp, Global Programs - $417,327 An…
Agree. I already pay for Kagi and Proton Unlimited, I don't mind paying for things that worth it, that I can trust.
Re: Mozilla reverses course on its terms of use
#19not a reversal, it's exactly the same as before > You give Mozilla the rights necessary to operate Firefox. "operating" can be siphoning off for ads, telemetry, or AI slop generation
The whole clause is weird because Mozilla doesn't operate Firefox; the user does. So at face value, "you give Mozilla the rights necessary to operate Firefox" means you give Mozilla no rights, but obviously that's not the intent. Then they explicitly list a couple examples, but don't say the granted rights are limited to those examples, so the clause could mean practically anything.
I'm curious if any lawyers can comment on how courts would be likely to interpret the clause.
Re: Mozilla reverses course on its terms of use
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Google revenue For those who've lost track of that situation, can you provide a link or two? Is Mozilla management looking at current national politics and figuring that antitrust pressure on Google is going to be nil for the next four years?
> For those who've lost track of that situation, can you provide a link or two? https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/06/technology/google-search-... I mean, it's the same situation as last year. Google lost the lawsuit, got declared a monopoly, the DOJ said they'll force Google to stop paying Apple and Mozilla for placement on their devices/browser (for Mozilla that means losing $500 million in ARR), Google is appealing b…
A hellish irony then that weakening the near-monopoly on search redounds to strengthening the duopoly of web browsers.