Never heard of that one. I'll give it a try, thanks!
2 Likes
An update from our end:
Response from Mozilla
We finally heard back from our contact in Mozilla earlier this week. However, their reply was brief and didn't give us much more reassurance about using Firefox.
In my original email to them two weeks ago, I asked them what the purpose of making the Terms of Use mandatory for all Firefox users was. Back then, I originally suspected that it was intended to cover their AI features, which are optional to the best of my knowledge. You can see my original email to them below:
My first email to Mozilla
Unfortunately, the recent announcement about Firefox's upcoming Terms of Use appears to go against our (and presumably Mozilla's former) stance on privacy and the protection of users' data. As a result, it looks like we may no longer be able to distribute Firefox in upcoming versions of Zorin OS.
We'll be making a decision on whether to continue pre-installing Firefox going forward, just ahead of next week's release of Zorin OS 17.3.
As this news is still fresh and it appears that the Terms of Use still hasn't taken effect in Firefox yet (as we understand), we're still open to staying with Firefox if we can ensure that user's inputs and data wouldn't be required to be collected by Mozilla.
We're aware that Mozilla's official clarification addendum states that you need a "license to allow us to make some of the basic functionality of Firefox possible", which I presume is intended to cover the upcoming AI features.
However, it seems like a more reasonable policy would be to only require that users agree to the new Terms of Use to use the AI features that require these terms (i.e. only displayed the first time the user starts using the AI chatbot for example). This would allow users to make an informed choice about their data privacy and would save Mozilla a lot of goodwill, preventing many existing users from switching to another browser.
Will all users still be required to agree to these new Terms of Use just to use the Firefox browser normally, regardless of whether they're using the AI features?
When they replied to me this Monday, they clarified that they're not going to use any data for AI and that their privacy policy hasn't changed with regard to how they use user data. When they addressed my question about the license to user data, they repeated their public stance that it doesn't give them ownership of this data (which was clear to us previously). They also claim that they now require a license to user data in order to "make some of the basic functionality of Firefox possible" and that they "couldn’t use information typed into Firefox" without it.
This still didn't clear up why they need a license to user data for Firefox's basic functionality (i.e. when a user interacts with the Firefox client-side software, not Mozilla's servers) in the first place. To the best of my knowledge, there are other browsers like Apple's Safari and Brave that don't ask for a license to user data for basic functionality. Those browsers are developed by companies based in California – just like Mozilla – so they're subject to the same legal jurisdictions. Within a couple of hours after receiving their response, I wrote another reply asking this specific question in more detail, which you can read below:
My second email to Mozilla
As this is a matter that a number of our users are concerned about, would you mind if I publish the content of your email on our community forum?
We’ve seen a little confusion about the language regarding licenses, so we want to clear that up. We need a license to allow us to make some of the basic functionality of Firefox possible. Without it, we couldn’t use information typed into Firefox, for example. It does NOT give us ownership of your data or a right to use it for anything other than what is described in the Privacy Notice.
I understand that the license doesn't transfer the ultimate ownership of users' inputted data to Mozilla. However, the question still remains as to why Firefox needs a license to users' data to begin with. While it may not be Mozilla's intention today to use user data in any way that overtly disrespects their privacy or violates their rights, this change in policy would seem to legally grant Mozilla this ability if you decide to do so in the future.
If the Firefox client-side software is the only intermediary between the user and the web-based content they're interacting with using its basic functionality (for example, when they're posting a comment on a website), this data shouldn't necessarily need to reach Mozilla's servers and Mozilla therefore shouldn't reasonably need a license to it.
The Firefox client software is already covered by the Mozilla Public License 2.0, which should cover what happens within the app. This requirement for Mozilla to get a license to process user data within the app appears to be an unprecedented legal paradigm, at least according to the explanations we've seen from other Mozilla representatives.
However, we're aware that neither Apple's Safari nor Brave appear to require any licenses to user data for basic browser functionality in their respective policies, even though both companies are also based in California and are bound by the same laws as Mozilla.
In short, why does Mozilla require a license to users' data that is intended to stay within the Firefox app (and not reach Mozilla's servers)?
Since I sent that second email on Monday evening, I haven't gotten a response from them. As the concerns about Mozilla's new policies still haven't been addressed, we will now commit to switching to Brave as the default web browser going forward.
Improving the default experience in Brave
We've been listening to your feedback regarding Brave and specifically around the visibility of its optional crypto, AI, and other non-essential features out of the box. This prompted us to spend some additional time to figure out how to improve its user experience.
As such, we will include custom default settings for Brave that streamline the browser's feature set out of the box (including hiding Brave Wallet, Brave Rewards/Basic Attention Token, Leo AI, Brave Talk, Brave News, and sponsored background images from the new tab page & toolbar) and integrate its interface better into the Zorin OS desktop so it respects your theme choice as standard.
I believe this addresses most of the cons of using Brave that you all mentioned, so we can continue to provide a clean and privacy-respecting browsing experience in Zorin OS 17.3 and beyond.
15 Likes
Thanks for the update on this. Glad to see the shift given how things appear to be going. The lack of clarification on their end indicates to me that they do not have a reasonable answer to give, and as such will be providing non-answers for the foreseeable future.
Thanks for the information @AZorin
Will there be a Brave Zorin OS (APT) Version in the Software Center then?
It would be good when You would've asked for the european Law, too because this isn't only because of the californian Law as far as I understand that. But okay. When You want implement Brave, do it.
But will the Mozilla Repo still be added or do You kick that out of the System, too? I mean, You could let it added but don't preinstall Firefox.
The APT version of Brave (sourced from their official repositories) will be pre-installed in Zorin OS 17.3 onward.
As I mentioned previously, this change of default browser will only take effect in new installations of Zorin OS 17.3 and future versions. We won't make any changes on existing users' systems to respect their existing browser choices.
However, existing users can install the Brave APT package by adding their official repository, as per their Linux installation instructions:
3 Likes
Too late. I am a Zen convert watching Netflix and Disney+ on it - just slight glitching where Disney is concerned.
Thank you for taking a firm and fair stand on this issue; keeping your end users at the upper end of the scale.
- Keeping clear, fair and open communication, not only with the other developers involved, but the end users / Zorin OS users.
- Slicing through the smoke and mirrors to obtain clarity of vision as to what the policy actually implies. This part was less easy, as misdirection had been used (ownership of data and regional legalities) that you were not deceived by.
- Taking protective action to the values that underscore all other interests.
User choice remains firmly in place, with users able to shop around and choose for themselves, using their preferred format (APT, Flatpak or Snap, Appimage or other) while the default in place meets all necessary requirements.
Opinions on browsers are varied and even sometimes divided (for many reasons). The ZorinGroup is as limited as the end users in choosing one as the closest option available rather than the best option available. As a default, Brave Browser is a good choice; even as users may choose to instead use Librewolf, Vivaldi, Zen or many other viable alternatives freely.
When this thread opened, I thought it would just be another thread where end users lament the boots on their neck, nothing more.
Use Brave Browser... Don't use Brave Browser... That the ZorinGroup decisively took action in this communication and Zorin OS, adhering to principle, not to what is 'just easy' is utterly praiseworthy.
10 Likes
Thanks Aravisian, really appreciate it!
9 Likes
What will happen with the existing default firefox browser. Will it receive updates in future ?
Yes, if you already have Firefox installed on your system, it will continue to receive updates from Mozilla indefinitely.
1 Like
This is really great news! Thank you for staying strong, and seeing the many Burke's in the Mozilla BS artists. That is how you do it, and why I also stick with Zorin OS, cause I know you have the end users backs at heart.
Note: For those not in the know, this is a Burke.
Watch the movie Aliens by James Cameron, to see how bad that guy is, and you'll get the reference real quick.
3 Likes
I have now uninstalled Firefox apt and am using the Flatpak version. I also currently use Brave as the flatpak Version.
What is strange is that Firefox Flatpak runs faster on my system than the Zorin APT version. For whatever reason I can't explain it.
For testing I reinstalled the Firefox APT and compared again. It remains the same, the Flatpak runs faster. 
1 Like
Yeah I feel the same with FF Flatpak.
I like Brave but not as much as FF, maybe because I use FF since really a long time.
2 Likes
They do have a Crypto element, I find it easy to ignore that.`
Ah, then I don't feel that alone. Yes I still like FF too and currently as Flatpak my daily browser. Under Windows (6 months ago) I still used Edge and Chrome and they certainly have even worse terms of use than Mozilla Firefox.
2 Likes
Yes, they do. Theirs contain a broader scope of licensing, modification and sub-licensing.
However, neither of those are Default Browsers on Zorin OS and have not been considered for the role.
3 Likes
I'm completely happy with Zen Browser. The vertical tabs reminded me of Vivaldi!
1 Like
This is exactly why you should always be careful with small, independent projects...
And the title says "...had a backdoor". I've read that thread in it's entirety and their are conflicting views. For privacy I might have to swallow a flatpak version of ungoogled chromium on Q4OS.