Comment

Comment on Sokath, his browser’s eyes wide open

No, they’re not. No software company has ever needed legal cover for that and nothing changed in the legal landscape to create that need now. To pretend that there is such a need is to deliberately misrepresent the fundamental nature of what a product, such as software running locally on the user’s machine, actually is.

The only justification for having ToS is if Mozilla is transforming Firefox into a service that depends on communication with Mozilla’s servers themselves, which is absolutely not just “typing a URL into the URL bar!”

source

Sort:hotnew top

essell@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
I think their blog makes it clear that it isn’t them that’s changing

Its that legal definitions are changing around them and they need to reflect that in their terms.

source
- grue@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  No, that’s what they claim, but it’s bullshit. Even the most “broad and evolving” definition of “sale of data” still entails Mozilla having the data at all in the first place, and that’s the bright red line they shouldn’t be crossing!
  
  If you want to get into the blog, here’s the relevant part:
  
  In order to make Firefox commercially viable, there are a number of places where we collect and share some data with our partners, including our optional ads on New Tab and providing sponsored suggestions in the search bar.
  
  See that? That, right there: that’s the entirely fucking unacceptable part!
  
  source
- Spawn7586@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  In a non-binding post they said that. In the ToS they say otherwise. “Here, sign this contract, I assure you it doesn’t do what it says” is how literal scams work. Laws aren’t changing anywhere, they are
  
  source
  - Corgana@startrek.website ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    you can skip the signature part (i signed it with a fake name cornelius flycatcher)
    
    source