I gave the Grsecurity anecdote to try to explain what I see as the weirdness surrounding the fact that Firefox as distributed by Mozilla is governed by both the source code license and its new ToS that adds new restrictions to the distributed product.

Clearly the uncompiled source code is open source and governed under an open source license.

Do you see Mozilla as displaying “aggression” and is their imposition of the ToS “rage baiting”? Mozilla made changes to the status quo. If the situation changes, are people not supposed to react?

I have no idea what prompted them to shift their position - I just know that they shifted. Look at the release notes and the support pages if you disagree. There is clearly a change.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

Yes, it sends data by default - but you can disable that. Not so for Firefox Labs.

deleted by creator

Plenty of OSS licenses have rules baked into them about how you can use the code, or lay out obligations for redistribution.

“Is it really open source if I have to edit the source code I was given to remove a feature I don’t like?”

I’m really not being aggressive about this position and I tried to express the ambiguity here. I think what irks me most are these things:

1. Forking Firefox means it isn’t Firefox - yes, this means that the original was OSS, but you really need to be an expert to get at all the OSS code running on your machine. I mean that it is literally not Firefox, since your fork doesn’t have permission to use the trademarked name.
2. If we think of the enabling functionality in Firefox as a virtual lock, breaking that lock is illegal under the DMCA. That seems very weird for code that is ostensibly open source.
3. The addition of the Terms to Firefox seems like an additional restriction (a la Grsecurity, as I mentioned in the post) to the existing license in Firefox. Indeed, Mozilla says that the existing license isn’t “transparent” enough for Firefox users.

Yes, the purpose of a system is what it does, but the author isn’t presenting any evidence of what it’s doing vis a vis their claim of making technical users quit FF.

The purpose of the system being what it does is Firefox being spyware - you can’t escape it if you want to use Labs features.

Love the feedback, and I while I think Firefox is open source, I do see the addition of software locks as backing away from OSS.

I also went ahead and posted a small update with some additional clarifying thoughts - I don’t think it will satisfy you, unfortunately - but it might help people understand where I am coming from.

Well - I don’t know about them being the same.

The new terms specifically disclaims Mozilla’s ownership of your data:

This does not give Mozilla any ownership in that content.

which limits their license to your data to processing it for usage within Firefox or Mozilla services. That is a huge difference. I don’t see how they would be able to claim - in a clickwrap agreement - that Mozilla saying that they don’t own your data somehow grants Mozilla ownership of your data.

That would be mind boggling.

My feeling on this is basically with Mozilla potentially running advertising campaigns on their own in Firefox (especially with Google funding possibly drying up), Mozilla felt that they needed to clarify their permission for access to user data.

Still, that doesn’t really explain why their initial terms were so over-broad in the first place – that is why everyone’s thinking went straight to AI as soon as they made their initial announcement. They haven’t deigned to provide us with an explanation for that - besides telling us that it was due to the CCPA.

Clearly we can’t lay all the blame on CCPA, since the rights grant is more limited today than at first introduction - a fact that they readily admit.

Yep, it is also not enabled for Linux, and your distribution might not be using a Mozilla binary anyway.

Right now, it is for new users only. Existing users are going to have to opt in at some later date.

Not really, when you push immature alternatives when ignoring a real choice. Seems more like you are supporting monopoly by ensuring that actual competitors get ignored - along with even smaller vendors.

“Look, don’t use LibreOffice instead of Microsoft Word, what you really want is VIM!”

You are saying there is all of this wasted money, but as soon as you are asked for evidence, it is all “I’m not a tax auditor”. Defend your claims!

They are both worse than Gecko, a platform you wish to die.

Sorry, you aren’t a tax auditor, but you are out here making claims. Try defending them?

Thanks for letting us know to discount what you say – if you prefer monopoly over choice, we’re really not having the same conversation.

This you?

Personally I hope firefox dies as fast as possible so we see some focus on good alternatives.

Gecko is not a good platform, there is a reason why people who use geckoview eventually all migrate away from it, the most recent example I can think of is wolvic, which hasn’t replaced geckoview yet, but does have the version 1.0 of a chromium release now.

The sooner we get real alternatives to chromium and stop pretending that gecko is one the better. Currently servo is progressing really fast, has good APIs and usability for both a full desktop browser and embedded usecases (but still very immature).

deleted by creator

The numbers you have quoted so far don’t make a dent in the 400M though - we haven’t even reached 1% yet. How much do you think Mozilla is spending on Firefox? How much of that is “extra” per your back of the envelope math?