Not a good look for Firefox. Third partners and device fingerprinting clearly mentioned in the documents.

The move is the latest development in a series of shifts Mozilla has undergone over the past year.

The gecko engine and Firefox forks, such as Tor, Mullvad, Librewolf, and Arkenfox, are stables of private, open source web browsing.

In fact, Mozilla’s is one of the few browser engines out there, in a protocol-heavy industry that many say only corporate or well-funded non-profits can reliably develop.

What is more, daily driving the more hardened-for-privacy Firefox derivatives can be frowned upon by many sites, including your bank and workplace.

Mozilla’s enshittification leaves the open source community without a good alternative to Firefox, after years of promoting it as a privacy-friendly alternative to spyware-cum-browser Chrome.

    • BaconIsAVeg@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      11 days ago

      (e.g. you use Firefox to make a post, they have to process those keystrokes through Firefox to send it to the server, and thus could require permission to do that in the form of having a license)

      A better example would be stored credentials, credit card information, and other PII type data.

    • CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      11 days ago

      I refuted most of these points on this user’s post.

      This is absolutely abnormal. No browser should require a license to my own data unless they plan on doing something with it.

      No other FOSS includes this language and I would argue that Firefox executable is no longer FOSS. It’s now source available.

      • Captain Beyond@linkage.ds8.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 days ago

        Yeah I am unconvinced of this line of thought. If I use (say) Kate Editor to edit a document, do the developers of Kate need a license to the content of that document in order to save it to my desktop? Since the text content is stored in a Qt widget does Qt also need such a license? Linux itself carries the data from the application to the disk, do the Linux developers (all of them?) also need a license?

        • CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          11 days ago

          They do not. Your use of the software, with software you “control” (edge cases of cloud compute, etc.) does not require you to grant a license to the software.

    • Captain Beyond@linkage.ds8.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      11 days ago

      It is abnormal for a free software project to have an EULA (i.e. a contract that one must agree to in order to install and use the software). This particular EULA does not seem to be as onerous as most but it may still place substantial restrictions on use.

      The acceptable use policy, for example, covers much more than just crime (including a prohibition on “graphic depictions of sexuality or violence”). However, it also specifically refers to “Mozilla services” so one could argue that it doesn’t apply to normal usage of Firefox; however, the Firefox EULA also specifically claims it does. Is Firefox itself a Mozilla service? I would assume not under the usually understood definition of such, but it’s not really clarified.

      It’s far easier to use something unburdened by an EULA, so I’m typing this from Librewolf.

    • Muehe@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 days ago

      Read the policies yourself

      I suggest reading this diff to the FAQs instead, paints a much clearer picture:

      https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock/commit/d459addab846d8144b61939b7f4310eb80c5470e

      Basically removes all the language about not selling data and some about privacy. Down in the comments someone argues this is due to a narrow legal definition of that language in certain jurisdictions, but that couldn’t sound more like an empty excuse if they tried. Actually all the reactions from Mozilla I have seen on this so far sound like pure corpo PR bullshit to me.

    • Engywuck@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      11 days ago

      “Mozilla can’t do anything wrong”. And people keep swallowing.

    • Auli@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      11 days ago

      Nope sorry when a company is asking for to broad of rights it’s for a reason and Mozilla can fuck off. I wish ladybird was ready.

    • jollyrogue@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 days ago

      Mozilla is going to surveil their users and feed the data to their AI/Ads systems. They needed people to opt-in, so they created a EULA.

    • OneMeaningManyNames@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      11 days ago

      You write a wall if text thinking you will shift the views of disgusted people turning their back to the product, a product at that which was iconic for their open source culture, and yet it somehow managed to alienate the niche that was more favorable to it. Good luck with that!

      • setVeryLoud(true);@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 days ago

        You: “Public opinion is tanking, so it must be true!”

        Them: Provides detailed, sourced information that explains the situation

        You: “Nerd, I don’t read that shit”

        Are you following your emotions or are you truly trying to understand the changes? You seem to be attacking / strawmanning people left and right in this thread and are generally not interacting in good faith.