Privacy

I think they mean Mozilla services such as ai, sync, etc. The browser itself probably doesn't fall under it.

We need a license to allow us to make some of the basic functionality of Firefox possible.

You have that! It's implied by provision when you distribute your software under eg.: GPL!

We need a license to allow us to make some of the basic functionality of Firefox possible

Gee whizz, like what? What "basic" functionality is missing that can only be solved with a ToS saying they're going to track how I use their browser?

Without it, we couldn't use information typed into Firefox

That's what I needed to see. So it's not missing basic functionality, they just want to make it legal to track your browser usage.

That's a nice disclaimer. They should clarify that in their privacy policy directly instead of just saying "oh that's not what we meant guys, pinky promise 😉"

Search for firefox-tou.
The presence of that now magically removes mentions of privacy and not selling user-data in multiple places.

-    <p>
-        Firefox is independent and a part of the not-for-profit Mozilla, which fights for your online rights, keeps corporate powers in check and makes the internet accessible to everyone, everywhere. We believe the internet is for people, not profit. Unlike other companies, we don’t sell access to your data. You’re in control over who sees your search and browsing history. All that and exceptional performance too.
-    </p>

+    {% if switch('firefox-tou') %}
+      <p>Firefox is independent and a part of the not-for-profit Mozilla, which fights for your online rights, keeps corporate powers in check and makes the internet accessible to everyone, everywhere. We believe the internet is for people, not profit. You’re in control over who sees your search and browsing history. All that and exceptional performance too.</p>
+    {% else %}
+      <p>Firefox is independent and a part of the not-for-profit Mozilla, which fights for your online rights, keeps corporate powers in check and makes the internet accessible to everyone, everywhere. We believe the internet is for people, not profit. Unlike other companies, we don’t sell access to your data. You’re in control over who sees your search and browsing history. All that and exceptional performance too.</p>
+    {% endif %}

Difference here is Unlike other companies, we don’t sell access to your data.

-    <h2 class="c-section-title">The best privacy</h2>
+    {% if switch('firefox-tou') %}
+      <h2 class="c-section-title">Always protected</h2>
+    {% else %}
+      <h2 class="c-section-title">The best privacy</h2>
+    {% endif %}

Pivoting from privacy to security in the tos.

-      <li>
-        <h2>{{ ftl('does-firefox-sell') }}</h2>
-        <p>{{ ftl('nope-never-have', url=url('privacy')) }}</p>
-      </li>
+      {% if not switch('firefox-tou') %}
+        <li>
+          <h2>{{ ftl('does-firefox-sell') }}</h2>
+          <p>{{ ftl('nope-never-have', url=url('privacy')) }}</p>
+        </li>
+      {% endif %}

As you mentioned they will apparently sell your data under tos.

Where does the tos apply and where the mpl now?
They would have removed all those mentions of privacy entirely if the mpl had no use anymore, wouldn't they?

I can't wait for ladybird, firefox is going downhill because of the Mozilla Foundation

It felt so weird to upvote this. Thanks for pointing that out, but also uuuuuuuuuuuuggggggggggghhhhhhhh

to what tho?....

It's because This Is The Bad Place

We're in the era of Sinisterization

I selfhost and use mostly FOSS and have ways of blocking 99% of ads and locally control all my IoT so if you're willing to learn then you don't have to feel that way. Because I feel in full control and in harmony with everything.

It's what's known as "vulture capitalism" or "parasitic capitalism", where sociopathic kleptocrats are allowed control and treat all aspects of life as hostile and adversarial — value must be extracted and stolen from others — rather than a mutually beneficial relationship to improve and enrich the experience for everyone.

This is exemplified by the stock market and "line must go up" — the belief that stable, sustainable profits are a failure and growth must be continuous and exponential, in a planet and civilisation of finite resources, analogous to cancer.

Hard agree. It does feel like we're entering an age where that may start to shift, though. Well, not so much a shift in the "mainstream", but it feels like we're starting to see more and more parallel products and services that have anti-enshittification built in. And I think that's our best path forward, all of us who care should work towards a parallel ecosystem that cuts these practices out as much as we can.

I read it as "you type a URL in the address bar, we'll take you there. You want to search for something using the search bar? We got you, we'll forward your search to the search engine of your choice. All free of charge."

It's just worded in such generic legal wording it makes you gag. But them pointing it out so explicitly just makes me more suspicious lol. I think it's fine for now, just another wall of text to keep an eye on for any future modifications.

Honestly you already start at paragraph 1 with a wrong premise and then go down from there. Allow me to point you to the very beginning, to your first emphasis:

You give Mozilla all rights necessary to operate Firefox,

This doesn’t mean you’re giving them a license to do whatever they want with your data, it means you’re giving them the ability to use that data explicitly as you choose to navigate the web.

Here's the trick: they are not operating Firefox, we are. It's a system that runs locally and under our instruction on our devices. When I type something in the URL bar, or when I click Open File, or when I mouse over the screen, Mozilla doesn't have to do anything: everyhting happens locally. No data should be being transmitted or be processed over their systems: Firefox is not a remote desktop / "live service" application.

...Unless...

And there you have it. That's why those terms are here.

None of this is abnormal.

Yes, it absolutely is. I do not say this lightly. While I'm not an attorney, I review FOSS licenses regularly for my personal projects and for work. Consider:

• Linux Mint uses GPL2
• LibreOffice uses MPL 2
• Countless, countless FOSS software all use free, open-source licenses

They all take user actions and user content. None of them have anything like this.

This is very worrying because each of these points can be refuted with the same quotes. I'll add my own emphasis:

You give Mozilla all rights necessary to operate Firefox, including processing data as we describe in the Firefox Privacy Notice, as well as acting on your behalf to help you navigate the internet. When you upload or input information through Firefox, you hereby grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to use that information to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content as you indicate with your use of Firefox.

If Mozilla wants to limit their use of my input, why the do I need to give them a full, non-exclusive license? This is the very language that LinkedIn, et al have used to train their LLMs and said that we all gave them permission to do so. While the letter of the law that may be true, we know that if we had the option to opt out, we would have.

This doesn’t mean you’re giving them a license to do whatever they want with your data, it means you’re giving them the ability to use that data explicitly as you choose to navigate the web.

I'm sorry but the license does not say that is the only way they will use this data. It's not explicit, like you claim. It's implicit. The explicit part is "nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license". They say that it will be used to "help you navigate the internet" but what the does that mean?!

"Navigating the internet" does not require me to grant a license. Much of this would fall under fair use and to this day, it's fallen under fair use. And even if it did require a license, why have it be nonexclusive? Language that specifies the length of the license shall be limited to the amount of time necessary to make the connection to a website, provide the necessary services of a website, etc. would all that would be needed.

And this is even BEFORE we get into the whole reasoning of even needing a license. The only reason you need a license from anyone is if you plan on storing, transmitting, transferring, or otherwise utilizing a right protected under copyright law. The only reason why Mozilla could possibly need a license is if they plan on storing or processing your data outside of your device. Best case scenario: they are using your data to "speed up" connections by processing it through their servers. Worst case (and more likely scenario): they want the data to train AI.

These Terms apply until either you or Mozilla decide to end them. You can choose to end them at any time for any reason by stopping your use of Firefox. Mozilla can suspend or end anyone’s access to Firefox at any time for any reason, including if Mozilla decides not to offer Firefox anymore. If we decide to suspend or end your access, we will try to notify you at the email address associated with your account or the next time you attempt to access your account.

Nothing requires you to stay in this contract after you stop using the services, and this is just reaffirming the fact that, yes, they can stop offering Firefox in the future if they simply can’t sustain it, without somehow breaking contract. More legalese just to protect them from frivolous lawsuits.

While you are factually correct, Firefox is explicitly stating here that they have the right to terminate an individual's use of their browser, a freedom that was protected under the MPL.

Your use of Firefox must follow Mozilla’s Acceptable Use Policy, and you agree that you will not use Firefox to infringe anyone’s rights or violate any applicable laws or regulations.

This basically just means “don’t do crimes using our browser.” Again, standard clause that basically everything has to make sure that nobody can claim in court that Firefox/Mozilla is liable for something a user did with their software.

This part really made my brain itch so I had to dig deeper. This is worse than I initially thought: Mozilla is replacing the MPL as the governing license for their executable and replacing with their TOS.

I'm not sure how I can read their TOS as anything but "terms of use = Firefox bad now". You are losing your freedom under the MPL to use Firefox however you see fit. What concern does Mozilla have if I decide to use their browser for crimes? They aren't facilitating it and under the MPL, they were protected from it. Since the TOS is now replacing the MPL, introducing an "Acceptable Use Policy" no longer makes this FOSS. It makes it Source Available.

As an avid Firefox user for decades and a former supporter of the Mozilla Foundation, this is the last straw for me. I will not agree to use a browser where my data is going to be used by them without any exclusions.

I hope you are right and I'm wrong. But given the current landscape, Mozilla likely feels the pressure to "do something with AI" and we're their products. You can continue to use it, but I'm spending the weekend figuring out alternatives.

Personally, I've never seen a Terms of Service about granting any software a license to do things on my own device before.

• I have a monitor, I don't think I signed a Terms of Service that says I gave it a worldwide license to function by piping video from an HDMI cable onto its panel.
• I don't think I signed a Terms of Service for my keyboard to send royalty-free keystroke signals to a USB port.
• I don't think I signed a non-exclusive license for my mouse to transfer motion detection into USB signal output either.

Is this normal? Have I just not been looking in the right places?

For me the problem is the use of the phrase "to help you..." because I think that means something different, something more, than what you're saying it means. That's not a phrasing that evokes, to me, the deterministic nature of the way a web browser operates (or used to operate). Traditionally, I give a web browser a command and it executes it, such as "go to this web address" or "print this page" or "save this as a bookmark". Helping me, on the other hand, would involve some processing of data to attempt to understand my desires. I don't want Mozilla or Firefox to be doing that at all.

Maybe it's just "readable" language that is read much more narrowly legally to mean just what you're saying. But maybe it opens the door for Mozilla to use it to help me experience online content by learning my habits and demographics in order to lead me to places I indicated I would be interested in by my use of the browser.