You give Mozilla the rights necessary to operate Firefox. This includes processing your data as we describe in the Firefox Privacy Notice. 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.
I’m not sure what to think. I’m personally leaning towards the idea that this was Mozilla trying to do something and failing miserably. I wonder if they consulted their community around this before publishing it.
I guess something to note is that Arch Linux builds Firefox from source. As such, these terms only apply to the services: Sync, Relay, etc.
I’m guessing EndeavourOS doesn’t go out of its way to build Firefox and just uses what Arch Linux provides?
If so, then using Firefox on Arch Linux, and many other distros, has the same effect it’s had for a long time now: If you don’t sign in, then your data is relatively yours and no one else’s.
That said, I really like FireDragon, so I don’t mind that this error by Mozilla pushed me to complete my switch. I was already slowly switching anyway.
Does anybody know what this actually means, in practical terms? It seems very weasle-wordy. The implication here seems to be that data collection is still occurring, and collected data is being shared with some external partners, just not in a way that could legally be considered “selling”.
TL;DR - Mozilla are terrible at PR (this isn’t news). While the changes are a cover-your-arse exercise driven by changes to California law (Mozilla is based in California), it’s genuinely unlikely that anything malicious or shady is going on. However, if have any genuine worries, just use Librewolf.
Firefox is identically porous as Chrome right out of the box. Insecure as get out, all elements phoning home, google servers contacted immediately and all day, and Pocket is frightening. At least they let you tighten down—I’ve seen Mozilla engineers in listservs lament all the about:config control and wishing that access was closed., So you really have to go in, and roll up your sleeves for a half hour to DIY. I found the Arkenfox and Betterfox profiles ok, but without the same priorities as me.
You can make FF a fortress and thankfully they allow you to, but what a PITA that is anymore. I handed it over to my higher power: Librewolf.
MS’s dough is a double-edged sword. On one hand you can see a track record of questionable decisions regading privacy by the Mozilla. And on the other hand, if the ever pulled out of Mozilla things like LibreWolf would disappear and Chrome knockoffs will rule.
An unrelated irony is people who care nothing about privacy/security 85% of us?) reject the uber-busy Edge. It wants to pull out the chair when you sit, wipe your mouth if you eat, change you shirt for free, and send a card to your mom on your birthday. It’s just a really weird browser. But now, I fear, I’ve meandered.
Yeah, I don’t really like playing 3D chess with corporations trying to guess at whether they’re really selling my data, or if it’s some good faith effort to comply with a badly drafted/overexpansive definition of “sell” in some California state law. I also don’t live in California and I don’t really want to think about what their laws say. Good chances the Arch Linux Firefox package is fine (I still have it installed on my system as a backup, and I don’t think it’s sharing my personal browsing data with Mozilla based on the configurations I have selected). But Librewolf does the job for me out of the box and if using it means I don’t have to worry about that stuff, that’s an extra point for it.
With that being said, Librewolf is repackaged Firefox without all the adware. If Mozilla goes bust and stops developing Firefox, Librewolf/Waterfox/Mullvad/Tor Browser/Floorp won’t work anymore. So this drama is distinctly unhelpful…
As things currently stand, Firefox development is not funded by donations. Mozilla Corporation funds Firefox development via a number of different revenue streams, including payments from Google to make Firefox the default search engine. So you actually cannot contribute to Firefox development through donations unlike Thunderbird. And any donations you make to Mozilla Foundation will go towards other initiatives unrelated to Firefox.
If Google’s funding stops (and any other big backers) and Mozilla needs to look for donations to keep developers paid and motivated, where would that money need to come from, and what would it fund the development of?
Who pays the core developers who develop and maintain Firefox?
At that point in time, Firefox development could be funded via donations un the same way as Thunderbird development. Heck, that model could be used now. But right now it is not at all accurate to blame Mozilla’s corporate shenanigans (including the preposterous C-suite salaries) on “people don’t want to donate to open source”. Currently, I could not donate to Firefox development even if I tried.
It’s “not at all accurate” is not at all accurate. “Not entirely accurate?” — sure.
Alas, you’re right that such a business model (or method of funding) could be used now.
But it isn’t. And that’s not because of Mozilla.
Edge, Safari, Google Chrome, Vivaldi, etc. are all “free”.
The expectation of most is if it’s digital, it’s “free”, unless they require payment for use.
Not saying they should require a payment. I’m just addressing the mentality, which was and has always been my point when talking about donations to open source projects.
Here is my big question. Can you honestly say that Linux is “Privacy Respecting” if it offers Non Privacy respecting apps as defaults? or is this a question really in need of its own thread?
You could for example install Archlinux as described in the Wiki. Apart from the bare minimum necessary for having a running operating system, nothing is is offered or installed by default. The operating system by itself doesn’t do any telemetry or collect user data so in that sense it is privacy respecting. You could then choose more privacy respecting applications for your use case or install Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or whole other bunch of proprietary stuff if you choose so and say goodbye to privacy.
I think your missing my point. The point is many Linux Distro’s “Advertise” Privacy but if a default program is NON-Privacy then can you still market as “Privacy Respecting”? This has nothing to do with changing things which is simple to do in Linux. The issues comes down to the actual advertising of Respecting Privacy when the OS is actively promoting software that is NOT Privacy Respecting.
Perhaps as you said, this would need another thread as it seems to be about a broader subject than “privacy respecting browser”.
Also I think it would help to know which specific Linux distributions you have in mind and which specific NON-privacy software they are “actively promoting”.
Since in your former post you said
which seems to touch upon “Linux” in a broad way, I gave an specific example of a Linux distribution which can be made to a privacy or non-privacy respecting system to the extent that you choose yourself.
I didn’t actually have any in mind. Just the question come to me from the talk about the license and the confusion of language around Selling your data so in this case Firefox. Since I really no longer keep up with Distro’s and haven’t really distro hopped in many years I don’t know who advertises what.
