> 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.<p>Like - what basic functionality? Does not sound like "browsing" is that functionality and I am not interested in any other functionality. I do not want you (Mozilla organization) to use any of that information.<p>Moreover, what if I do not have the right to sublicense the content I enter to FF? Am I legally not allowed to use Firefox?
> Mozilla released a "Terms of Use" document for Firefox, a first for the open-source browser. That might sound like business as usual, but [...]<p>That's not business as usual, that's a contradiction! Open Source software doesn't impose terms of use. Criterion 6 of the OSI's <i>Open Source Definition</i> document: <i>No discrimination against fields of endeavor</i>. [0]<p>The FSF's <i>Four Freedoms</i>, analogous to the OSI's Open Source Definition, has a similar requirement: <i>The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).</i> [1][2]<p>It's true that Mozilla's terms of use nonsense was limited to the Firefox executable binary, and did not apply to the source-code, but still, there's a reason the community sees this as a betrayal. We shouldn't have to work around this kind of thing in the first place.<p>It's not 'confusion', Mozilla. The backlash from your community is because you're betraying your professed values, not because your community is stupid.<p>[0] <a href="https://opensource.org/osd" rel="nofollow">https://opensource.org/osd</a><p>[1] <a href="https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#four-freedoms" rel="nofollow">https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#four-freedoms</a><p>[2] <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43207456">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43207456</a>
This “nonexclusive worldwide license for the purpose of doing what you asked us to do” thing has bitten so many companies over the years, I can’t believe anyone would obliviously put it in there at this point.<p>I understand your IP attorney thinks you need this license to operate, but the users will definitely freak out unless you express <i>extremely</i> clearly what the restrictions are, and probably write a blog post explaining what it’s there for. In the current climate it will be read with the worst possible interpretation.
Too late I’ve installed Librewolf. I’m going to either find a tool this weekend or write one tonight that will keep my bookmarks in sync with ios and that will be it for them from me.<p>The value is wayyyyyy too low to embrace folding. And perhaps these negative reactions are extreme but are a bit more telling.<p>Clearly nearly almost everyone wants Firefox out of the hands of Mozilla. They have low market share from being Google’s get out if jail free card. Now the 2.x% that remain are flocking away as well. This exit out is an attempt to “fork” Firefox in some manner. There is an opportunity to swoop in and pick up the helm.<p>Mozilla perhaps doesn’t see the story everyone else does:<p>- developed privacy stance over a decade<p>- updates their policy to state “actually well we’ve been selling data about you”<p>At this point you might as well have said, “Haha we’ve been lying this whole time about privacy.”<p>Regardless of truth and nuance of it all, the damage is done. The privacy promise was the only thing holding the rest of the complaints back.
Seeing all of the negative articles about Mozilla and Firefox has not influenced my decision to use Firefox as my primary browser. Firefox is the only mainstream browser that still permits add-ons to block advertising and scripts.<p>Privacy in Edge and Chrome are a joke compared with privacy in Firefox. Safari is a joke altogether, and would die if Apple did not force it on users.<p>I like Firefox and I like Thunderbird, and I will continue to use both of them.
It's been about 15 years since I've used Firefox as my main browser but I'm not sure what their value proposition is at this point. They're not faster than the best browsers, and if they're not going to be better on things like privacy I don't see where they are going to position themselves. I mostly use brave now and some chrome when the occasional site doesn't work in brave.
From the outside, in my opinion, this reads as a strong signal that the rank and file Mozilla staffers are generally disempowered. I like to assume that if this was floated at an all-hands that it would have resulted in some strongly voiced objections. Until the leadership at Mozilla changes there remains a reason to distrust Mozilla.
[dupe] There's so much discussion on this ongoing:<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43213612">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43213612</a><p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43185909">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43185909</a>
> a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license for the purpose of doing as you request with the content you input in Firefox.<p>This is super bog-standard nothing-special stuff.