Remember, "Poor writing, not specialized concepts, drives processing difficulty in legal language."* You see that here. Mozilla chose to use legalese and not plain language, despite there being a movement afoot to try to push (and in some cases legally require) for plain language in legal documents. This one isn't so bad, since they mostly avoid passive voice and don't needlessly capitalize much. Maybe the low freque…
The term itself is bad here. The problem isn't just because it's hard to understand. > Second clause establishes that when you input that data you give firefox a license to that data which you otherwise own Firefox doesn't need a license, because it's not a legal entity; it's software acting on behalf of a person (the user). Mozilla doesn't need a license to all information input through Firefox, because Mozilla does…
I will maintain it is an issue of clarity. Your argument is that Mozilla isn't offering online services but this isn't true and clarifying what actions upload information and exactly how that information would be used would mollify this. The list would probably be quite extensive. Moreover, the clause doesn't necessarily give them a license to all information input through firefox and that clarification should be demanded of them.