The Buzz around Mozilla's New Terms of Use

Chat about Zorin
121

They certainly seem a lot simpler to read through, so I'd say that they are.

What I find odd about this whole situation is that Mozilla updated their terms according to how certain jurisdictions define certain terms. If that were a valid argument, wouldn't there be other companies doing the exact same thing?

A big reason why we don't want this is so that competition keeps everyone else at bay. But if everyone is going (or being pulled) in the same direction, this doesn't seem all that relevant anymore.

If forks of Chromium can still modify the source to combat some of the anti-features introduced by Google, then not all hope is lost.

As of now, the MV2 extensions we plan to explicitly support are AdGuard AdBlocker, NoScript, uBlock Origin, and uMatrix.

— What Manifest V3 means for Brave Shields and the use of extensions in the Brave browser | Brave

3 Likes
122

I am curious to see how @AZorin decides and whether Mozilla has responded to his request.

I believe that Firefox is still the least of the evils.

123

Since I emailed the contact in Mozilla 10 days ago I haven't received any response yet. I bumped the email thread today in case they plan to reply, but we're 99% sure that we'll be switching to Brave as the default web browser, unless Mozilla publicly reconsiders their recent policy changes.

Please note that this change of default web browser would only take effect in new installations of Zorin OS 17.3 and beyond. Existing Zorin OS users will keep their existing browser, but can install Brave from the built-in Software store or by following the instructions on the Brave website.

As always, you can install any other Linux-compatible web browser in Zorin OS from the built-in Software store or the browser's official website.

6 Likes
124

Thank you for the information. Although I don't think Brave is the solution to replace Firefox. At least that's how I see it. A Firefox by default - which in the end is still built under the umbrella of a non-profit foundation - makes more sense for Linux distributions.
Are Brave's Terms of Use really much better than Mozilla's?

125

I've just updated Firefox to 136.0.1 - reading their privacy notices I cannot see much change at all to their terms and conditions. Certainly the collecting data and pings can be unchecked. I check Privacy Settings after every Firefox update. So it may be they have backtracked and kept the same modus operandi. Certainly they explain that there are elements that get placed on your machine in order for Firefox to function and in terms of the copyright elements there is reference to individuals not being able to use IP that belongs to the Firefox Product. Whilst on this subject, I wonder if this effectively means creators of Firefox Icons that differ from the original are in breach, but I suspect not. I suspect it is to prevent third party download sites from potentially interfering with the mozilla code. I can still get rid of all the search engines I don't need and replace with Mojeek. I have struggled to get used to using Chromium and based on what I have read, I cannot see a fundamental change. There is mention of A.I. for translation of web pages which means there will be a small package installed on your computer. I suspect as stated in the interview, it is down to the EU regulations. EU regulations can be good, but I also think that some civil service legislators are anti-US period and Mozilla should not be lumped with that 'other' crowd. I also suspect having just written that players like Microsoft 'Edge' would expect a level playing field and EU legislators have catered for this. Whilst legalese is a Lawyers paradise, Mozilla has to be guided accordingly. Here in the UK we are no longer a part of the EU, which personally is a PITA as replacement stripes for my Twingo from a dealer in the UK costs £399 - I could potentially buy them from France at €99 - but can't. Why? Because we are no longer in the EU companies do not have "Royaume-Uni" in the list of countries that can receive their product! This is what I uncheck every time I update Firefox, so no change here:

image
image621×331 60.3 KB

I am now thankfully getting rid of Chromium and back on Firefox. I am still dubious about Brave in view of issues around the founder who got kicked of Mozilla for his disrespect of inclusivity, not to mention active backend Crypto currency shenanigans that various people have reported on the Brave Browser forum. Wouldn't surprise me if Brave is a Crypto Miner. I will never use Crypto period.

3 Likes
126

I'm not a lawyer, so I personally can't give an in-depth, nuanced analysis of the difference between different browsers' usage policies. However, this article gives a brief and understandable comparison between different software regarding the "nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license" clause, which is the crux of the controversy around Firefox's new Terms of Use:

If you want more context about the Firefox Terms of Use situation, the author later wrote a subsequent article that gives a general overview of the matter:

@swarfendor437 In Mozilla's announcement post, the mentioned that the new Terms of Use will only come into effect as a mandatory policy "later this year for existing [Firefox users]":

5 Likes
127

I think the key issue here is that Mozilla has no legal expertise. Instead of allowing the lawyers to explain the situation they had their right foot in their mouth whilst walking the legalise tightrope and lost their balance, probably without checking with the experts. Perhaps they need to change their name to Blunders'R'Us.

128

Very interesting information @AZorin, thank you very much.

1 Like
129

Their terms of use bypass a blunder and dive headlong into abuse.

This was not a wording mistake that they are trying to backpedal.
This was actual legal wording that they are trying to keep and downplay, deceptively.

4 Likes
130

I know, that this sounds in the first Moment terrible. But it isn't. It is written:

It also includes a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license for the purpose of doing as you request with the content you input in Firefox. This does not give Mozilla any ownership in that content.

So, the worldwide is because they have Users worldwide and these Users can worldwide operate with the Browser.

Royalty-free ist because there are no Costs.

And non-exclusive explains that You are not binded at the Browser.

And the last Sentence explains open that they are not the Owner of something.

Exactly. I mean, they have Lawyers of Course. But they speak ... Lawyer-Language.

EU Law and a Californian Law as far as I understand that.

3 Likes
131

It is.

Read it carefully.

Look at this wording carefully.

If you want to submit a form using Firefox, does Firefox need "nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license" in order to comply with that submission?

No, it does not.

By wording it the way that they did; they give the illusion that they require license to the data you input when they do not actually need a license to it at all.
By wording it that way, they make it seem like you must agree to grant them license to your data in order for them to process the information you transmit. This is false.

They knew the wording; they knew exactly what it meant. This is not a mistake in communication.
And instead of removing that bit of license-grabbing; Mozilla is holding its feet planted firmly: They really want your data.

EDIT:
Put another way:
If GIMP had that ToS, then they would have nonexclusive royalty-free worldwide license to any image you artistically create on GIMP, under the deceptive and dubious claim that because you used GIMP to rasterize the data, that necessitates GIMP to need to hold licensing for your creation; that they now can use without paying you any royalties for.

Neither EU nor CA law make any such requirement. No other browser is so consigned. Only Mozilla is making this dubious claim, using the CA law as a 'legitimate sounding" but false reason for this power grab.

Does the Post Office need "nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license" to the data you mail through their service?
No.

Does your telephone service provider need a “nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license” to the content of your phone conversations just because you use their network? No.

If you store private documents in a rented storage unit, does the storage company require a license to the contents inside? No.

Does your electricity provider need rights to everything you power with their service, such as your computer files or TV broadcasts? No.

If you rent a hotel room, does the hotel obtain rights to the conversations you have inside or the documents you work on while staying there? No.

So why does Mozilla feel entitled to it? What part of EU or CA law justifies this entitlement?

2 Likes
132

None at all. The web is generally changing for the worse. EU regulation has restricted me as a Vimeo user. Because of EU regulation I no longer have access to worldwide video makers only those in the EU. I think we need to look who or what is really behind this. What appears to be happening globally is citizen isolation and exclusivity, neither mutually exclusive.

133

I do not know how you can say that this is global; given that only Mozilla is making this claim.
No other browser is.
No ISP is.
No network provider is.
No cloud storage is.
The post offices; DHL, UPS and FedEx are not.

Just Mozilla.

1 Like
134

Yes, if You type in a Web-Adress or post a Picture it is needed because Firefox do that because it runs in the Browser.

That is simply Lawyer-Language. Is it well-written? No. It is a Mess. At least for a normal User. And that is exactly the Reason why we talk about that now. It is really bad Communication. Bad Communications with this Terms, with the Way how they explain it to the User's and bad how they react on it.

They read the Adress on the Letter, they transport it through the world to the Goal and I have to pay for it. So, it is worldwide, but not free and depending if they do it by thereown it can be exclusive but don't have to when they work with other Logistics Partner.

135

Why do you believe they need a License to the data? Why? Can you please detail your explanation for that?

It really is not. It is very clear. It is not a mistake or a poorly written memo.
It Is Not A Mistake.
That is not what it is. It is written very, very carefully and clearly in order to suggest that a license is needed when no such thing is needed.

None of this answers the question as to whether the logistics company needs a "nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license" to do any of that. (No, they do not. And neither does Mozilla).

1 Like
136

The Licence in this Context is simply the Authorization from You that they can do what You type in. Or in common: You allow Mozilla that they make what You want that the Browser should do (sorry for the bad English). Could they simply wrote ''We make what You want and do not sell Your Data''? That would be simple, easy and transparent. But it seems that it would be simple, easy and transparent - and that is too easy. Why easy, when You can make it complicated.

And when ''sell Data'' not have in every Country the same Definition ... for whatever Reason. Should they set up for every Country or Region a different Wording? That would make it only more complex.

Do I say that Mozilla is here innocent? No. They made a bad Job at this. And it is not the forst Time that they made a bad Job. I would think that they learned from the Past but obviously they didn't.

137

That is not what a "nonexclusive royalty free worldwide license" is. It is not authorization to do what you are telling it to do.
It is giving them a license to use that data how they want to.
If I let you borrow my car; it does not transfer ownership of my car to you. Only allows you to use it as you want to. Do you see the issue here?

This is the important part that I keep repeating: They do not need a License to do what you need to do on the browser.

They do not need one.

That is not needed. Not by law - Not by How the Software Operates.

It is not needed.
They do not need a LICENSE on your data.

This is NOT a wording mistake. If it was, they would have fixed the mistake. Instead; they reworded it to say the same thing and stuck to their guns.

138

Well the EU has a lot to answer for:

1 Like
139

Well, the CA law in question protects consumers from their data being sold. But... if you give the software a license to that data, then they can sell it.

Mozilla adjusted the ToS to gain that licensing and when there was public reaction and uproar, instead of removing it, they tried using misdirection: "This does not mean we own your data."
This is why I say it is not a miscommunication.

The deliberately worded that, while keeping that claim for a license in place.

Having a license to drive does not mean you own the road. It means only that you may use it.

3 Likes
140

Because if they did that, they could not gain that license to your data that they want.
So, they must make it complicated in order to confuse with jargon.

I seem to be poorly explaining this so I scrolled up through the thread to see if anyone else did a better job.
Yes.
@AZorin linked to this which linked to this:

And I think that explains it far better than my attemtps.

1 Like