yoasif
You are right - I was struggling with the fact that Mozilla was adding additional restrictions via its Terms, alongside the MPL that changed the rights of their users. You are absolutely correct that the code remains free while the user doesn't.
Yes, it sends data by default - but you can disable that. Not so for Firefox Labs.
Extending this argument would mean that it's potentially illegal under DMCA to remove any protection mechanism that it would be 'hacking' to bypass during usage (e.g. SSL, authentication, etc) from any OSS project. Thats not the case, because an OSS license gives you explicit permission to modify the application.
I'm talking specifically about the compiled Firefox on my disk - if I break the virtual lock, I have broken the law. Sure, a forked version of Firefox that I compiled on my own would grant me access to the features without breaking the lock - but the copy of Firefox that Mozilla distributes to me only allows me access to the features under a new terms grant -- not under the existing open source license.
Again -- yes, Firefox is literally open source. But as I said in my post, this feels to be against the spirit of open source. Obviously we disagree on that front.
Plenty of OSS licenses have rules baked into them about how you can use the code, or lay out obligations for redistribution.
"Is it really open source if I have to edit the source code I was given to remove a feature I don't like?"
I'm really not being aggressive about this position and I tried to express the ambiguity here. I think what irks me most are these things:
- Forking Firefox means it isn't Firefox - yes, this means that the original was OSS, but you really need to be an expert to get at all the OSS code running on your machine. I mean that it is literally not Firefox, since your fork doesn't have permission to use the trademarked name.
- If we think of the enabling functionality in Firefox as a virtual lock, breaking that lock is illegal under the DMCA. That seems very weird for code that is ostensibly open source.
- The addition of the Terms to Firefox seems like an additional restriction (a la Grsecurity, as I mentioned in the post) to the existing license in Firefox. Indeed, Mozilla says that the existing license isn't "transparent" enough for Firefox users.
Yes, the purpose of a system is what it does, but the author isn't presenting any evidence of what it's doing vis a vis their claim of making technical users quit FF.
The purpose of the system being what it does is Firefox being spyware - you can't escape it if you want to use Labs features.
Love the feedback, and I while I think Firefox is open source, I do see the addition of software locks as backing away from OSS.
I also went ahead and posted a small update with some additional clarifying thoughts - I don't think it will satisfy you, unfortunately - but it might help people understand where I am coming from.
I talk a little about this in the post, but it feels very weird to think of the new Labs features as being open source but not being accessible unless you are giving Mozilla data -- OR you are compiling your own copy of Firefox (which is also no longer Firefox).
I think it is a very weird situation, but of course I do see the ambiguity.
Well - I don't know about them being the same.
The new terms specifically disclaims Mozilla's ownership of your data:
This does not give Mozilla any ownership in that content.
which limits their license to your data to processing it for usage within Firefox or Mozilla services. That is a huge difference. I don't see how they would be able to claim - in a clickwrap agreement - that Mozilla saying that they don't own your data somehow grants Mozilla ownership of your data.
That would be mind boggling.
I'm not pushing the video, it is there for people who don't want to read. 🤷
Sorry for wasting your two minutes.
Here's some more analysis (also linked on the original post).
My feeling on this is basically with Mozilla potentially running advertising campaigns on their own in Firefox (especially with Google funding possibly drying up), Mozilla felt that they needed to clarify their permission for access to user data.
Still, that doesn't really explain why their initial terms were so over-broad in the first place -- that is why everyone's thinking went straight to AI as soon as they made their initial announcement. They haven't deigned to provide us with an explanation for that - besides telling us that it was due to the CCPA.
Clearly we can't lay all the blame on CCPA, since the rights grant is more limited today than at first introduction - a fact that they readily admit.