5d ago

Mozilla rewrites Firefox's Terms of Use after user backlash | TechCrunch

techcrunch.com Mozilla rewrites Firefox's Terms of Use after user backlash | TechCrunch

Critics said the new terms implied Mozilla was asking users for the rights to whatever data they input or upload through Firefox.

You're viewing a single thread.

18 comments

It was pretty damn horrible communication but I never believed Mozilla would go into full on data brokering business.
- That wasn't the point. The point was that the terms as written would allow them to.
  
  No it wouldn’t. For fucks sake, are you a lawyer? Can you read legal definitions?
  
  You don't need to be a lawyer to read legal contracts.
  Their proposed terms of use changes the executable from FOSS to a proprietary application with their source code available.
  Firefox, when run completely locally, requires no license to your content because it is not a legal entity. Mozilla, however is.
  The only reason Mozilla would require a license is because it intends on using your data outside of your local device.
  
  You are intentionally misreading it.
  
  Please read these Terms of Use (“Terms”) carefully because they explain important information about using your copy of the Firefox software. These Terms are a binding agreement between Mozilla Corporation (“Mozilla”) and You.
  Mozilla grants you a personal, non-exclusive license to install and use the “Executable Code" version of the Firefox web browser, which is the ready-to-run version of Firefox from an authorized source that you can open and use right away.
  
  You've literally never read over a license before have you? Here's some text from the Apache License, V2 for you to compare:
  Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute the Work and such Derivative Works in Source or Object form.
  every piece of software you use has a license attached to it. If it doesn't have a license attached to it then it's not open source. Granting a license to a copy is a standard part of open source software. Here's some from the MIT License:
  to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"),
  The GPL literally has a Terms and Conditions section to it! One of the most FOSS licenses out there lays out ToC to ensure that they're followed. This is standard practice. The GPL also mentions "copy" 28 times, not including the word copyright. Here's one of them:
  
  All these terms are about the source code and the one who receives it or not.
  The equivalent would be the MPL for Firefox, which, guess what, does not prevent the user from doing anything with the source code.
  Now let’s go back to talking about the ToS shit because you’re confused, talking about software license which is irrelevant here.
  
  The person I replied to literally brought up the license. I'm not confused about anything. I'm here combating fake information spread by people like you who have zero clue what they're talking about yet pretend to because they fall for rage bait (the original person who spread all of this is a literal known rage bait twitter account) and can't admit they're wrong.
  
  I don't need to read legal stuff because we don't need a ToS: I don't need one, Firefox doesn't need one, Mozilla doesn't need one for Firefox. So, why?
  
  Firefox uses underlying services like Firefox Sync, the New Tabs page which shows ads, a Google service for DNS, and sponsored segments in the search bar.
- I literally can't think of a single person at Mozilla who would benefit from that situation more than from the status quo.

18 comments