The biggest issue in my eyes is that they removed wording that explicitly states they don’t sell user data.
Until they put that back in their TOS/PP, then I can’t trust them.
Mozilla’s only winning move at this point is to delete their terms of service, IMO. I have yet to see a substantial example of an open-source product that’s pushed a license remotely like this onto its users.
And considering how the OSI has corrupted its own definition of “open-source” already, I don’t want to see this go down a slippery slope. Apps like Betterbird, which ship some components from Firefox, are already saying “the related Mozilla terms may apply.”
How’s the article frame this though?
The revised TOU now explicitly state that Mozilla requires certain rights to operate Firefox, including processing user data as outlined in the Firefox Privacy Notice.
Not great.
It emphasizes that Mozilla does not gain ownership of user content…
Okay so far…
…only a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to fulfill user requests.
And we’re back in the weeds. “Non-exclusive” means it doesn’t just belong to them. Who else does it belong to? Ditto for worldwide: Firefox sits on my computer in one place, not everywhere in the world.
If Betterbird is giving that notice, I wonder if this means that all forks of Firefox will also be affected in that same way.
Total pricks.
The best case scenario is they are simply being too cautious, and they can eventually remove that disclaimer.
Otherwise… I don’t know. I assumed Thunderbird and friends used Gecko, but I never thought a component in Firefox could be put in a different product and cause people to be subject to a Mozilla license.
OK, so I won’t try to defend Mozilla on the changes, I’m just basically keeping an eye open for what would make me run away and trying to understand the changes correctly. This whole debacle falls into the category of lost in translation I believe, the translation between legalese and actual English, or alternatively they are preparing for an anti-user move.
What I’ve been wondering about is that it might be “not so strange” from a legal point to ask for such rights, uncommon maybe but not out of the ordinary, specially if they use the data for analysis and what not. Removing the part of not selling your data is the biggest red flag in my opinion. But many people seem to put emphasis on the rights of user content.
My non-expert understanding of how it is written is as follows:
Nonexclusive: meaning they are not keeping you from going to someone else and giving them similar rights. This doesn’t mean they can give the rights to someone else, just that you are not blocked with them.
Royalty free: data can be used with no payment needed.
Worldwide: so location of Mozilla or user is irrelevant (no clue if local laws can affect this)
Neither of those terms is inherently bad… As far as I know. But the best part is “to fulfill users requests”, which as far as I can guess if they wanted to use the data in ways the user would be against or simply is not requesting would mean they are breaking their own TOU. All of that put together makes this change seemingly harmless in my opinion… Again, until you get to the point of removing “we won’t sell your data”.
I really hope you’re interpreting that the right way, but I’ve found it’s generally futile to assume the best from any legal document. I’d be happy to get proven wrong, though, especially by Mozilla themselves!
