901–910 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Welp, they stopped being open source, then. From the OSD: 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
AFAICT there is no restriction on the application itself: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/eula/
> Mozilla grants you a personal, non-exclusive license to install and use the “Executable Code" version of the Firefox web browser, which is the ready-to-run version of Firefox from an authorized source that you can open and use right away.
> These Terms only apply to the Executable Code version of Firefox
But not the source code if you compile it from scratch
> [Continuing previous quote], not the Firefox source code.
However the source code excludes DRM components, and while the terms don't mention it I believe also some API keys
> In order to play certain types of video, Firefox may download content decryption modules from third parties which may not be open source.
(It's not clear to me that these terms are currently in effect. Certainly I haven't been asked to agree to them yet).
The problem I have with these kinds of hot-takes is that they often don't tell the full story, and it's seemingly for the purpose of generating rage. For some inexplicable reason, this guy truncates the paragraph from the Terms of Use, repackaging the information without a key part of the final sentence: "....to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content as you indicate with your use of Firefox."…
> to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content as you indicate with your use of Firefox."
I don't read that as a caveat, so I'm assuming it means something different to you. To reword slightly and hopefully show how that sentence is coming across to me:
> As you have indicated by using Firefox you have given us the right to...
The 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…
I'm pretty sure this is about Mozilla services . AFAICT, Firefox itself is licensed under the https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Public_License and as such doesn't put any restrictions on how you use the software.
So either they're saying your use of Firefox, regardless of whether you want to use Mozilla services, must also follow the same acceptable use policy that your use of their services would, or it's a massively ambiguous way of saying your use of Firefox in combination with actual Mozilla services must comply with the policy.
If it's the former, their terms of use would be in conflict with the commonly understood definition of open source and free software licensing. If it's the latter, it's just poor legalese that fails to make its intent clear. (Interestingly, the Mozilla Public License does not seem to explicitly say that there are no restrictions regarding the use of the software for any particular purpose, although that is a commonly accepted part of the definition of free software and open source.)
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20250228155328/https://www.mozil...
[2] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/acceptable-use/
I might have differed with Brendan Eich on a few matters, but he was a good steward of Firefox in my book. When Mitchell Baker took the reins, Mozilla became rather more heavy-handed towards us - the irony being that Waterfox was once proudly displayed on the Mozilla website under their "Powered By" banner. I appreciate the constant existential wobble Firefox faces, but they've made some peculiar decisions as of late…
Here's my question: in light of what Mozilla is doing, why don't other forks like Waterfox or Librewolf write a manifesto/contract saying they'll never sell your user data and won't turn "evil" (until they do, of course), and then decide to offer a paid version of their browser. Two possible outcomes: 1. No one cares. No one pays for it. Nothing changes and nobody loses anything. 2. Enough people pay for it to keep t…
When this topic has been discussed on Hacker News in the past, it has also been pointed out that developing a browser with feature parity to Firefox or Chrome would be prohibitively expensive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Comments such as yours are missing the point. Mozilla's ToS applies for Firefox's use, and this is literally written by Mozilla themselves: “Your use of Firefox must follow Mozilla’s Acceptable Use Policy” There's no distinction between the browser and Mozilla's online services here. --- And even if it were referring only to features such as “profile syncing” (and it doesn't refer only to that), does this mean that p…
How do you square this with the following: > Mozilla software is made available to you under the terms of the Mozilla Public License 2, a free software license, which gives you the right to run the program for any purpose, to study how it works, to give copies to your friends and to modify it to meet your needs better. There is no separate End User License Agreement (EULA). https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/e…
That is EXACTLY what we WANT: DON'T use information we type in Firefox!
If that's a problem for you, let us pay you i.e. $5/month.
Tried Librewolf and found it to be great,
- No Pocket bullshit.
- I forgot I had the start page set to blank only because Firefox was fixed on ruining it while forbidding using a custom one.
- Exporting/Importing bookmarks takes 20s. (Ctrl-Shift-o, export/import).
- Exporting passwords is simple (Preferences, search for passwords. Alternatively just go to about:logins).
- I had many extensions to install, but the ones that need heavy customisation all had export/import. Migrating passwords was easy through a (totally not safe) csv file.
- The only troublesome extension was Video Download Helper, but after re-running `vdhcoapp install` I figured I just needed to copy `~/.mozilla/native-messaging-hosts/` into `~/.librewolf/`.
We're entering the end days now. Stallman showed us the light and then ESR closed the blinds.
I'm simplifying: Stallman told us that free software was the only way. ESR said open source was the way with business in mind.
We've ended up with businesses taking advantage of open source. The slew of licence changes to not compete, having special paid versions, and generally shitting on the open source community.
The only thing free, is the labour companies are exploiting.
To Mozilla: if your intentions are indeed good as you claim in your post[1], then update the ToS accordingly. Chrome is removing µBlock origin, I and probably a lot of other users saw this as a good moment to promote Firefox to our relatives, you are missing a chance and alienating your user base here. [1] https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/firefox-news/fi...
Absolutely agree. The blog post is claiming the opposite to what their ToS is granting - but one is fluff (that will be forgotten soon) while the other is legally binding. I cannot imagine applications like browsers that would require such an unrestricted license for user input just to do its service. That clearly indicates some "other" future motive that is underlined by the notion to remove the FAQ entry and other…
Might be a case of covering their asses in the context of services they provide for search suggestions etc. Those are not mere programs users run on their own devices, and they rather make use of services run by Mozilla, which probably leads to their lawyers seeing the need for legally covering Mozilla ass.
A less charitable interpretation is that they actually want to introduce terms for using the software itself, in a way that conflicts with the no-nonsense "no restrictions on use" approach of open source, and thus ignoring open source principles in preference for covering their asses against hypothetical risks, while somehow still trying to look like open source.
In any case I agree the blog post or the update don't make anything better. I don't think the post says anything substantial about the terms of use or their introduction. It doesn't, in concrete terms, clarify anything about the seeming conflict between the introduction of terms of use and the commonly accepted definition of open source (which includes no restrictions on use). The post rather seems like a classic case of trying to make things better with nice-sounding words rather than owning up and actually clarifying any ambiguity.