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!
That’s the real problem with legalese. It comes off as precise, but the wording is actually vague, vague enough to screw you somewhere, and enough to cover their ass in too many ways. Like reading the above comment makes absolute sense with what’s in there. At the same time it also makes absolute sense if they wanted to start selling our search histories to the highest bidder.
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!
That’s the real problem with legalese. It comes off as precise, but the wording is actually vague, vague enough to screw you somewhere, and enough to cover their ass in too many ways. Like reading the above comment makes absolute sense with what’s in there. At the same time it also makes absolute sense if they wanted to start selling our search histories to the highest bidder.