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.
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?
Not great.
Okay so far…
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.