The Anti-Trust case against Google may bury Firefox before they implement their licensing initiative:
Perhaps, but let's stick to one thing at a time so as not to confuse the issue...
1 Like
Perhaps not confusing. Google loses it's antitrust case. Mozilla takes pre-emptive action in case this happens. Perhaps its data stream sale relates back to advertisers that Firefox is a useful tool that increases their revenue as more users turn to Firefox. Let's be clear, if Firefox (sic. Mozilla) fails it will mean the end of all the forks as Gecko fades into oblivion leaving the big boys to revel in their extended market share. Let's not forget that Google is the biggest fund provider for Mozilla. While staff are leaving in droves from the foundation, perhaps they have seen the writing on the wall. Who knows, maybe they will create a Browser and Mail client combined called Phoenix (like SeaMonkey but Private) and release it on GitLab.
3 Likes
Oh and make Mojeek the default search engine!
Some better GPL icons from Flaticons.com:
This one would go well with EndeavourOS:
Phoenix licence would have to stipulate that it is in no way connected to Phoenix Arizona.
Having taken some thought on this, Mozilla becomes, "Men-in-the-Middle'R'Us". We clearly identified ourselves as this in our new TOS. They also respond to the term "T O S S E R S !" = jerk jockeys.
This isn't simply telemetry we're talking about. Information about what operating system is most used, how many extensions are installed, etc. is useful and legitimate data that a browser maker can collect in order to improve the product. This goes far beyond that, tapping into the user's communications directly and selling that information for their own profit.
1 Like
No, that isn't the Intention about this. But I understand that it looks like this. The Word ''Licence'' alone is confusing enough here. And the other Stuff doesn't make it better.
An Example: When You type in Firefox ''zorin.com'' You want that the Browser show You the Zorin Website. But to do that it needs to take what You typed in to look for the Website to show it You. And when You have enabled the Security Stuff in the Settings, it will be checked if it is a bad Website. You allow them to do that Stuff - and that is meant here as ''Licence''.
At the End every User have to decide what to do now. Do You use a different Browser like Brave? I will not. I have Brave, yes. But more as a Back-Up for Testing if something not works. The whole Crypto Stuff and their Add Model Thing bloats it too much up. You can turn it off, yes. But in Firefox it isn't even built-in.
And other Chromium-based Browser are no alternative for me. And in the Firefox Site, you have LibreWolf, Floorp, Mullvad or the not finished Zen Browser. The last one is no Option for me because it isn't finished. The others could be an Option but they don't offer me - at least not at the Moment - something what would convince me to switch.
We will see how Firefox and Mozilla will behave in the Future and what they will make. Maybe then I would switch to a different one. Maybe this upcoming Orion Browser will be a Choice. Who know's. But for now I will use Firefox.
2 Likes
The browser, yes. But not the browser vendor. Mozilla does not need to know what websites am I visiting. And they certainly don't need to sell this information for profit.
Other browsers, such as Brave or Vivaldi, also implement this feature provided by Google. This again raises the question: why don't they update their own terms and privacy policies to phrase it in a similar way?
You can turn it on; it's disabled by default.
2 Likes
But Mozilla offers the Service over the Browser. So, they will know that.
Maybe because it comes from Google? I don't know how this is handled legally.
Not disabled. It isn't set up. But I wasn't precise here, yes. With ''turn off'' I meant that You can shut it down and let the Icons disappear.
The actual wording is "nonexclusive royalty free worldwide license".
That it is royalty free and that it is nonexclusive makes it clear that "license" does not mean "being able to display to you what you looked up."
I, too, fear the monopoly and I understand how that fear may lead others to try to protect Firefox in order to prevent a monopoly.
Sadly, we must remain vigilant against abuses; regardless of a short term goal.
The phrasing "nonexclusive, royalty-free, and worldwide license" in the Firefox Terms of Service (ToS) extends beyond the mere technical necessity of processing user-entered data for display purposes.
Your statement would only be valid if the terms explicitly limited their scope to technical functionality, such as caching or transmitting data. However, the inclusion of terms like "royalty-free," "sublicensable," and "worldwide license" suggests broader rights being granted.
"Nonexclusive royalty-free license": This means Mozilla (or its affiliates) can use the content without compensating the user and without restricting others from using it as well.
"Sublicensable": This suggests that Mozilla has the right to grant third parties (such as partners or service providers) the ability to use the data, which goes beyond the direct function of processing a request.
If the only purpose of the license were to process and display entered data, it would be redundant to include sublicensing and royalty-free aspects, since such processing would already be simple function of using teh browser.
Other browsers and software do not require users to license their data for the purpose of simply displaying a website.
License means exactly what the word license means. The definition is not somehow changed in regards to Mozilla. It is not confusing, nor is it a matter of miscommunication.
Mozilla did not poorly write their ToS. What they wrote in was carefully crafted: And we noticed what it was saying.
2 Likes
I found this video, after some additional searching on "mozilla tos".
Note: Contains some bad language.
2 Likes
Why would they know that? There is no technical reason why this information needs to be shared with Mozilla.
By making this definition so incredibly vague and broad, Mozilla can decide at any point that basically anything that passes through Firefox is included in the terms.
@zabadabadoo I prefer to link to Odysee 
1 Like
Yes. That is a better alternative source for that video.
This is how we can tell that Mozilla did not have an errant miscommunication.
If it had been poorly written, as some speculate; Mozilla would have corrected and re-written the ToS in better terms and more limited scope.
Not only did they not do so, they stuck with the original ToS but added in some misdirection. Their response was to distract with a Red Herring: "This does not mean that Mozilla takes ownership of your data". This misdirection tricks the reader into thinking ownership was the issue.
It was never the issue.
What they do with their License to use the data was and is the issue.
I applaud the ZorinGroup for being on top of this:
- for not being deceived by the deliberate misdirection about ownership of data
- for openly communicating with the end users
- and for exploring other options on this issue.
Very Well Handled on this one.
5 Likes
@zenzen @zabadabadoo Nick from The Linux Experiment rightfully left odysee behind for tilvids as Odysee does not censure any hate videos that are appearing on there. Odysee is definitely a channel to forget.
Well looks like I will be moving to Chromium for sure now. No way will I use Brave browser.
Finally got around to a different fork of Firefox, Mercury Browser:
The Browser Installer has never worked for me on PCLOS Debian Plasma, so installed via Synaptic Package Manager.
Yeah, I'm aware of about that incident. It's understandable, although I don't fully agree with that decision. The fact that bad people saying bad things exist is sad, but not something that I consider a good enough reason to leave that platform. There are also very good people publishing content over there, aren't they?
As Nick says, YouTube does removes content like that... but not before recommending and profiting form it, according to a study by Mozilla, no less — oh, sweet irony. This is a personal preference, but I prefer the freedom of speech over hypocritical self righteousness (same as Mozilla while claiming to be champions of privacy).
The bottom line is, there's a harsh truth no matter where we look. But we are grown ups and should be able to handle things accordingly. We do need alternatives to YouTube for the same reasons we need alternatives to Chromium monopoly, and ultimately the reality is that we are in no position to be picky about it.
I wish more people used PeerTube, though. The Linux Experiment is probably one of the few channels (that I know of, at least) that started publishing there and still continues to do so.
129.0.2
That version of firefox was released on August 2024, so 7 months ago.
I'm no cybersecurity expert, but I'm sure a lot can happen in so many months. And that's not ESR, that would be 128.x
It doesn't look like the browser is actively maintained
1 Like