Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're on macOS, then Kagi's Orion seems good: https://kagi.com/orion It's been working fine for me anyway.
They are working on Orion for Linux this year as well
Thanks, that's extremely good news. :)
Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox
921–930 of 1001 posts
Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox
#922The 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…
They're basically saying you can't use Mozilla VPN to get around state age restrictions for access to adult content.
Gives them an out to claim it's already not permitted on their platform and that they're not enabling crime in these states.
Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox
#923The 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…
They're basically saying you can't use Mozilla VPN to get around state age restrictions for access to adult content. Gives them an out to claim it's already not permitted on their platform and that they're not enabling crime in these states.
No they are not. They are saying exactly: "You may not use any of Mozilla’s services to[...]Upload, download, transmit, display, or grant access to content that includes graphic depictions of sexuality or violence"
Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox
#924This 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…
thanks for the research. I just quickly tried them all. I have an older mac with older FF. Results: librewolf and waterfox wont run (10.15 min) and the floorp (react) website crashes. IceCat runs! and seems to use LibreJS for javascript, so my first few tests failed because you have to individually allow scripts per site. I quite like that idea! although my quick test of breakout (HN yesterday) runs slow/stuttery. A…
> I have an older mac with older FF. Results: librewolf and waterfox wont run (10.15 min)
That's just because Firefox itself requires at least macOS 10.15. IceCat only works because it's based off of Firefox ESR; once the next ESR comes out IceCat won't work either.
There is a fork of Firefox (which is in fact the web browser I use) that adds back support for older versions of macOS. At the moment, it supports all the way back to OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion. However, this is all it does; it does not contain any additional privacy features above and beyond mainline Firefox. However, I guess it technically isn't a Mozilla product, so you won't need to agree to Mozilla's Terms of Service.
Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox
#925Since it’s relevant to the discussion, here’s a repost of their latest response.
https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/update-on-terms...
On Wednesday we shared that we’re introducing a new Terms of Use (TOU) and Privacy Notice for Firefox. Since then, we’ve been listening to some of our community’s concerns with parts of the TOU, specifically about licensing. Our intent was just to be as clear as possible about how we make Firefox work, but in doing so we also created some confusion and concern. With that in mind, we’re updating the language to more clearly reflect the limited scope of how Mozilla interacts with user data.
Here’s what the new language will say:
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 does not give Mozilla any ownership in that content.
In addition, we’ve removed the reference to the Acceptable Use Policy because it seems to be causing more confusion than clarity.
Privacy FAQ
We also updated our Privacy FAQ to better address legal minutia around terms like “sells.” While we’re not reverting the FAQ, we want to provide more detail about why we made the change in the first place.
TL;DR Mozilla doesn’t sell data about you (in the way that most people think about “selling data”), and we don’t buy data about you. We changed our language because some jurisdictions define “sell” more broadly than most people would usually understand that word. Firefox has built-in privacy and security features, plus options that let you fine-tune your data settings.
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 other means, a consumer’s personal information by [a] business to another business or a third party” in exchange for “monetary” or “other valuable consideration.”
Similar privacy laws exist in other US states, including in Virginia and Colorado. And that’s a good thing — Mozilla has long been a supporter of data privacy laws that empower people — but the competing interpretations of do-not-sell requirements does leave many businesses uncertain about their exact obligations and whether or not they’re considered to be “selling data.”
In order to make Firefox commercially viable, there are a number of places where we collect and share some data with our partners, including our optional ads on New Tab and providing sponsored suggestions in the search bar. We set all of this out in our Privacy Notice. Whenever we share data with our partners, we put a lot of work into making sure that the data that we share is stripped of potentially identifying information, or shared only in the aggregate, or is put through our privacy preserving technologies (like OHTTP).
We’re continuing to make sure that Firefox provides you with sensible default settings that you can review during onboarding or adjust at any time.
Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox
#926The 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…
> Either their legal team made a mistake, in which case they should correct it and issue an apology ASAP I don't think it is a mistake but more the translation of a vision and strategy that took hundreds of meetings to be laid down very precisely. I have nothing to back what I am gonna say but I am wondering if their strategy might be to truly become the default browser of governments who are uncomfortable having Chr…
I think Baker is now gone gone.
https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/mozilla-leadership-growt...
Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox
#927>UPDATE: We’ve seen a little confusion about the language regarding licenses, so we want to clear that up. We need a license to allow us to make some of the basic functionality of Firefox possible. Without it, we couldn’t use information typed into Firefox, for example. It does NOT give us ownership of your data or a right to use it for anything other than what is described in the Privacy Notice. From their blog post…
What basic functionality are they talking about? Do they list it anywhere? Or is "basic functionality" the new "security reasons" for justifying every stupid rule or policy.
Mere speculations: they might have been contemplating the integration of their Orbit add-on into the browser. For that, they might need some extra legal fluffs.
Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox
#928Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't see how regulated entity is better in any way than individual. I feel you. Regulatory bodies have definitely fallen short in many cases, and we've seen concerning proposals from governments that threaten digital privacy and freedom. "Who watches the watchmen" seems incredibly apt nowadays. However, I feel there's a fundamental difference between imperfect accountability and no accountability at all. With a…
> I feel you. Regulatory bodies have definitely fallen short in many cases, and we've seen concerning proposals from governments that threaten digital privacy and freedom. "Who watches the watchmen" seems incredibly apt nowadays. Many regulatory bodies seem to constantly fall short of what they are supposed to do and then demand more money and powers to continue to fail at what they are supposed to do. At what point…
I never see regulatory bodies demand money or powers. That's private companies and law enforcement, respectively. Regulators seem to be staffed by skeleton crews allowing them to take on one case a year, and the Google-tier customer support that entails.
Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox
#929Earlier quoted context omitted.
AFAICT there is no restriction on the application itself: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/eula/
The terms are very clear that they apply to Firefox the application itself (but not the source code if you compile it from scratch) > 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…
Ah, you are totally right! They do indeed have a separate ToS for the official binaries ("Downloadable software"), see https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/.
However, the "acceptable use" clauses that OP complains about are not part of these ToST Rather they seem to apply to Mozilla "services", which are related to Firefox accounts (https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/terms/services/)
Side note: strangely, there is no link to https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/acceptable-use/ on the main legal site (https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal).
Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox
#930Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the Firefox source code though, not necessarily the Firefox binary. A Visual Studio Code situation, basically.
I don't think they use a separate EULA for the binaries. I've found this: > 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.…
Correction: they do have separate ToS for the official binaries (https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/terms/firefox/). Still, the "acceptable use" clauses only apply to Firefox services.