Specifically, it's boilerplate to prevent Firefox for being dinged for bog-standard browser behavior, presumably in jurisdictions where that might be a possibility.
Here's the clarification from Mozilla:
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.
The new policy merely allows Firefox to function as it always did, to help users visit web pages, allow the browser permission to store your personal information such as form data, or to access a file that you wanted to upload to a website.
If that is the case, I wish they would just say that. Currently, it is written as a Rorschach test where each person sees the good or evil they want to in the changes.
Right? Non-exclusive is good because I can licence to others too as I see fit.
What is the legal meaning of “full”?
Surely I only want to grant a limited non-exclusive licence where the limit is for the use of the browser and the expiry is immediately after I stop using the browser.
I am sorry but it is possible to write a privacy policy or Terms of Use that is clear, concise and reassuring to users. If a statement or word is confusing they can use the next sentence to clarify what that means. Whatever ambiguity in wording is clearly intentional on Mozilla's part. For what? Maybe for their new AI play (mozilla.ai) or their impending integration of "Privacy-Preserving-Ads" .[1][2]
Oh, nonono, there is absolutely no confusion. Firefox starts selling your data, that is all there is. Look at these changes [0]. This is not some legal ass covering, either you get paid for user data or you don't. Mozilla just cleared the way for that to happen. Now there is no reason left to stay on Firefox, we can all just enjoy the speedy yet stable poison of our overlords at Google.
https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock/commit/d459addab846d8144b...
Whenever a PR department of an authoritative side is speaking of "confusion", I call it BS.
The onus is on them to use clear phrases.
A dialogue would be alright (We meant... You interpret... Let's rephrase...).
But single-handedly blaming the other side?
Considering that amount of backslash?
That's nothing but lame.
Specifically, it's boilerplate to prevent Firefox for being dinged for bog-standard browser behavior, presumably in jurisdictions where that might be a possibility.
Here's the clarification from Mozilla:
I guess this is to avoid legal issues with the embedded translators and/or the Orbit AI Assistant.
If that is the case, I wish they would just say that. Currently, it is written as a Rorschach test where each person sees the good or evil they want to in the changes.
Just say why and be done with it.
If Mozilla wants to limit their use of my input, *why the do I need to give them a full, non-exclusive license*?
Right? Non-exclusive is good because I can licence to others too as I see fit.
What is the legal meaning of “full”?
Surely I only want to grant a limited non-exclusive licence where the limit is for the use of the browser and the expiry is immediately after I stop using the browser.
I am sorry but it is possible to write a privacy policy or Terms of Use that is clear, concise and reassuring to users. If a statement or word is confusing they can use the next sentence to clarify what that means. Whatever ambiguity in wording is clearly intentional on Mozilla's part. For what? Maybe for their new AI play (mozilla.ai) or their impending integration of "Privacy-Preserving-Ads" .[1][2]
Firefox is being enshittified.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30305770
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41311479
Oh, nonono, there is absolutely no confusion. Firefox starts selling your data, that is all there is. Look at these changes [0]. This is not some legal ass covering, either you get paid for user data or you don't. Mozilla just cleared the way for that to happen. Now there is no reason left to stay on Firefox, we can all just enjoy the speedy yet stable poison of our overlords at Google. https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock/commit/d459addab846d8144b...
Whenever a PR department of an authoritative side is speaking of "confusion", I call it BS.
The onus is on them to use clear phrases. A dialogue would be alright (We meant... You interpret... Let's rephrase...). But single-handedly blaming the other side? Considering that amount of backslash? That's nothing but lame.