Interesting that in this thread discussing a new Mozilla EULA/AUP (among other things) banning pornography, not one person has mentioned that their image library was once called libpr0n: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=66984
Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox
321–330 of 1001 posts
Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox
#322Earlier quoted context omitted.
The squeeze on any content that religious people find 'yucky' is double-pronged in the US - encouraged both by governments and businesses. Paypal, Visa, Mastercard et al are given complete discretion over what transactions they can block, and they have already extensively used this to deprive legal NSFW platforms and creators of their income. So, on one end, state governments are trying to strongarm NSFW services by…
I dont think the pressure from payment processors is because of puritanism, but rather payments in this space tend to come with a much higher % of fraud and chargebacks and they've decided it's not worth the risk.
That is half truth that gives them cover.
Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox
#323Earlier quoted context omitted.
My conspiracy theory is that gears are slowly turning to revamp the culture, redefine what’s acceptable/not acceptable and eventually suggest that if you won’t have kids you’re not accepted in the society. Basically a funky way to reverse the population decline, as the governments are realizing this problem won’t be fixed by free markets and etc.
People aren't having kids because of stagnant real wages and soaring home prices. In the US, the median home price is now $450k. In Canada, it's $650k . And when people do have children, they're on average having fewer, later in life (with a greater risk of complications): https://www.northwell.edu/news/the-latest/geriatric-pregnanc... I doubt banning porn or abortion or engaging in cultural engineering will fix this…
The best way to have more kids is to increase the size of the middle class, while lowering housing, food and childcare costs.
Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox
#324The other WTF is here: Your use of Firefox must follow Mozilla’s Acceptable Use Policy, and you agree that you will not use Firefox to infringe anyone’s rights or violate any applicable laws or regulations. Acceptable Use Policy links to https://www.mozilla.org/about/legal/acceptable-use/ which says "You may not use any of Mozilla’s services to[...]Upload, download, transmit, display, or grant access to content that…
The applicable laws of North-Korea might differ than the applicable laws of Russia which may differ from the law of Qatar, etc. It might be even impossible to uphold this world wide even if you tried.
So i guess it's more a 'we at Mozilla don't want any trouble' thing.
Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox
#325Title is a complete lie/misleading. They get a license, not ownership. Let's dissect what it actually says, and we do it backwards, because given the discussion around this subject it seems like people space out or have their mind clouded by outrage before they get to the end of the sentence: > help you [do things] as you indicate with your use of Firefox. So this already only covers things that you indicate you want…
>Let's dissect what it actually says I don't believe that dissection is a good way to understand the implications of this clause. >When you upload or input information through Firefox, you hereby grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to use that information to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content as you indicate with your use of Firefox. Rather than go over this word-by-w…
> what limits exactly does this place on Mozilla?
Mozilla is bound to only use the content to help the use navigate, experience and interact with online content as the user has indicated.
> One thing they could do with your financial data is show it to you (least harm).
Yes - this is what the user indicated.
> Another thing is to aggregate it with other's data (medium harm).
And the user has not indicated that this would be a permitted use of the data - thereby revoking the license of the first clause. If the data is used outside of the final clause of the license, that is unlicensed use of data. This would be a material breach of the contract by the corporation. This could open them up to massive legal penalties.
Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox
#326Earlier quoted context omitted.
Short answer: No. Long answer: Unless the button says "phone home my information to Mozilla", this license wouldn't cover that. This license only covers whatever is necessary to make the button itself work - whatever is necessary to realize the user's intent.
They didn't need a license to your data before. Why should they need it now?
Let me guess: chmod775 will not reply to this comment.
Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox
#327> Mozilla can suspend or end anyone’s access to Firefox at any time for any reason, including if Mozilla decides not to offer Firefox anymore. On what planet is that free, open source? Can you imagine: "The Free Software Foundation (FSF) can suspend anyone's access to GNU Emacs at any time for any reason, including if the FSF decides not to offer GNU Emacs any more".
Judging from nearby wording, this is primarily geared towards the Firefox account stuff as opposed to the Firefox browser. (I'm not happy with Mozilla's decision to name everything Firefox, it makes things like this confusing.)
As a non-legal word of advice: when reading legal text, always read defensively. Never assume good will when legal matters are concerned.
Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox
#328where does it say "own"?
it says: "nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to use that information to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content"
type something - it's "used" to get what "you" want - how is that "own"?
Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox
#329This made me look into Firefox forks/alternatives: Librewolf [1] seems to be fairly active (last commit on Codeberg was last week) and up-to-date with the latest upstream releases (mirrors FF's versioning scheme and matches their latest). Has a nice focus on privacy and no-telemetry. Floorp [2] also looks active (last commit last week), also claims focus on privacy. Based off FF's extended support releases so it may…
Try going to gitlab.com with librewolf, you'll see a white page with no content. Librewolf is blocked off from half the internet that uses cloudflare, so it's kind of a useless browser. Every browser that's not a majority browser will be associated with these kind of blocking risk. I can't risk access to my financially important accounts, nobody can. So to me this is not a feasible alternative. The only way to build…
This is purely FUD per my experience. I use librewolf on websites behind cloudflare and with plenty of js. They all work just as well as they did in Firefox.
Librewolf sends Firefox in the user agent, and you can toggle Firefox "features" on if a website you use requires them.
Not trying to convince you to switch to it--you do you. Just sharing with someone who might be reading this thread and that hasn't tried librewolf.
Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox
#330It's fascinating how any Firefox thread here inevitably devolves into accusations that Mozilla has abandoned users and a push to switch to alternatives, despite Mozilla working in the interest of users to a infinitely greater degree than any other major browser vendor.