9 ms·

This is a good news. Firefox OS was never a real product, but a PoC. IMHO, Mozilla should absorb the Tor project and focus on Free Web technologies, e.g. a re

This is a good news. Firefox OS was never a real product, but a PoC. IMHO, Mozilla should absorb the Tor project and focus on Free Web technologies, e.g. a really Free email service and a Free cloud storage service. Yes, I intentionally use capitol F for Free. How to raise money? Freemium model. A good email+cloud storage service, with the optional pay model for using a custom domain. And stop attacking the Linux distros for the Firefox trademark (forcing them to create the Iceweasel fork) or including proprietary services (e.g. Pocket) forcing the creation of the Icecat fork. Just be a Free and Open browser, with some good cloud services, and make money within a Freemium model (allowed by Free Software Foundation policies).

dal 11y ago
Yes and they should allow us who want to actually use the capital F.. Free part of the licence to use your own servers for everything. It is really hard to do now with Sync in Firefox for example.
- CaptSpify 11y ago
  What is hard about it? I've never used it, but have been meaning to for a while. Are there licensing issues? or is it just hard to actually get working?
  - majewsky 11y ago
    In version 28 or so they removed the ability to configure Firefox Sync against a custom Sync server. You could continue to use an existing setup but there is no UI for setting up a new one. (all AFAIK)
    - elcritch 11y ago
      It's things like this which become annoying. Almost like an old school corporate mentality... despite being an open-source platform. I'm trying to get into using Firefox again but the lack of transparency from Mozilla Inc. is frustrating.
      - elcritch 11y ago
        To add to this reasoning: [ Remove "Ask me everytime" cookies option](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=606655 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=606655).
vacri 11y ago
> And stop attacking the Linux distros for the Firefox trademark (forcing them to create the Iceweasel fork) Debian's rules don't allow things that aren't free-free, and blocked the copyright-encumbered logo. Mozilla was protecting it's trademark and branding. Debian calling it iceweasel basically replaced the branding so that it could be used under Debian's rules. It turned out to be a fairly amicable result - debian still gets the software with full utility, and mozilla keeps their branding coherent (branding is important to making money with any model, but especially freemium). Also, this licensing stoush was ten years ago; it's not like it's fresh wounds.
- matzipan 11y ago
  So which part of replacing the Firefox brand with Iceweasel is coherent branding?
  - yebyen 11y ago
    It's not just replacing the Firefox brand, it's replacing the onus of responsibility for the package. When Debian packages your software, they insert their own patches, they do their own disparate issue tracking and release archive management, they are quite effectively a separate product. If they called it Firefox, by Debian, it would be equally damaging to the Mozilla mark (in a sense of trademark law.) If they didn't do their usual Debian thing with the patches and the release management, it would be similarly damaging to the Debian mark, so-to-speak. (All packages get this treatment, no upstream software release vendor gets special privileges.)
    - davidgerard 11y ago
      This goes way back - I was a documentation volunteer in the run-up to the Mozilla 1.0 launch in 2002, and Debian did all manner of weird things to their Mozilla package that we then had to sort through to distinguish from the mozilla.org binaries (e.g. someone had to make a list of Debian Mozilla useragents so we weren't specifically checking their behaviour).
  - sp332 11y ago
neerdowell 11y ago
> or including proprietary services (e.g. Pocket) forcing the creation of the Icecat fork. Your timeline is off by about a decade. IceCat was first released in 2008 and the GNUzilla project has existed since 2005. Firefox added Pocket support in 2015.
bobajeff 11y ago
I would love to use a email/webmail service from Mozilla. It would have to be ads supported but there might not be as much of a stigma against it as with suggested tiles.
- 50CNT 11y ago
  I mean there is Mozilla Thunderbird, but it hasn't been the focus of much development since 2012, with intention to decouple it from Firefox development in 2015. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Thunderbird https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Thunderbird] [https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/thunderbird/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/thunderbird/]
  - bobajeff 11y ago
    That's just a client we were talking about a service. (eg. Yahoo Mail, Gmail etc.)
- xentronium 11y ago
  I agree, email from mozilla would be a killer. I'd pay for it.
drdaeman 11y ago
> a really Free email service What do you mean, exactly? Service that's Free as in "Free Software"? We have enough of free MTA, MDA and MRA software, and while they can be always improved further there's need to start a new project. There are also a lot of packaging efforts, where anyone can find what they'll be pleased with (from source tarballs to build to one-click "rent a server and provision everything there, pre-configured" web-based buttons). And Mozilla have finally ditched their MUA (Thunderbird) recently, so I somewhat doubt they'll venture in that field again, even if they'd decide to make a web-based MUA (instead of desktop software) this time. Service with some nice-to-hear policies? There are enough services that do all sort of pinky promises (and, I must admit, some try to bring some technological measures, but core email protocols don't allow much here, so it's mostly still relies on trust) of privacy, security and all sorts of stuff. Not sure if we need another one. Something else?
- freehunter 11y ago
  A Gmail that doesn't sniff your emails to serve ads to you or hand them over to the government, that's based on a FOSS project and can be hosted on your own server if you'd like to. Throw in an encryption option and you have a winner.
JohnTHaller 11y ago
> IMHO, Mozilla should absorb the Tor project Tor has too many legal and ethical issues around it for Mozilla to take that kind of risk. > And stop attacking the Linux distros for the Firefox trademark (forcing them to create the Iceweasel fork) or including proprietary services (e.g. Pocket) forcing the creation of the Icecat fork. Debian made a bunch of changes to Firefox and was still calling it Firefox. Debian also objected to Firefox's trademark policy despite Debian's trademark policy for their own trademark being virtually identical. This happened years ago and years before Pocket even existed. Pocket code in Firefox is open source, you can examine it yourself. And, due to lazy loading, it's never even called if you don't interact with it. You can right-click and remove the button and never worry about it again. Using Pocket was to add a much-requested feature to Firefox without Mozilla having to invest to development hours into building something that already existed.
- lmm 11y ago
  I don't think Debian "objected". Mozilla's trademark rules are not compatible with the DFSG, therefore Debian can't distribute an officially branded Firefox. I do think the ideal thing would be for Mozilla to distribute Firefox packaged in such a fashion that the branding can easily be swapped out (in the same way that e.g. Redhat isolates its trademarked material to a couple of packages and documents exactly what you need to replace if you want to distribute your own modified version of Redhat) so that there would be no need for a full fork.
  - carussell 11y ago
    Two things: 1. It's true that the Debian didn't initiate the schism. Mike Connor (Mozilla) told the Debian folks to stop distributing branded builds that weren't QAd by Mozilla. 2. When doing a build, it has always been trivial to create an unbranded version. Unbranded versions are what you'd get by default. At this point, I haven't run a build in years, but it would be surprising if this weren't still the case.
    - strcat 11y ago
      I don't think it's the case anymore. They used to name the releases and then brand it based on the name. The releases are treated as inconsequential now.
pcwalton 11y ago
> including proprietary services (e.g. Pocket) forcing the creation of the Icecat fork. What? GNU IceCat has nothing to do with Pocket. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_IceCat#Origins_of_the_name https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_IceCat#Origins_of_the_name
jldugger 11y ago
> including proprietary services (e.g. Pocket) forcing the creation of the Icecat fork. The search bar is an equally proprietary backend service, and pretty much universally funds Mozilla, but I don't hear many complaints about it.
- toyg 11y ago
  At the time it was implemented, it was controversial; but the overall sentiment was that it was a necessary evil to get Mozilla some stable funding. Also, OpenSearch is a standard and anyone could easily replace the default. Pocket was simply an extension that got bundled outright. After decades of Mozilla declining to include even uber-popular extensions in order to "keep up appearances" of being a neutral community project, they basically endorsed a random startup without any sort of consultation or public competition. That's what people objected to. If they had implemented a standard and just blessed Pocket as a reference implementation without bundling it, nobody would have complained.

dal 11y ago

Yes and they should allow us who want to actually use the capital F.. Free part of the licence to use your own servers for everything. It is really hard to do now with Sync in Firefox for example.

CaptSpify 11y ago
What is hard about it? I've never used it, but have been meaning to for a while. Are there licensing issues? or is it just hard to actually get working?
- majewsky 11y ago
  In version 28 or so they removed the ability to configure Firefox Sync against a custom Sync server. You could continue to use an existing setup but there is no UI for setting up a new one. (all AFAIK)
  - elcritch 11y ago
    It's things like this which become annoying. Almost like an old school corporate mentality... despite being an open-source platform. I'm trying to get into using Firefox again but the lack of transparency from Mozilla Inc. is frustrating.
    - elcritch 11y ago
      To add to this reasoning: [ Remove "Ask me everytime" cookies option](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=606655 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=606655).

vacri 11y ago

> And stop attacking the Linux distros for the Firefox trademark (forcing them to create the Iceweasel fork) Debian's rules don't allow things that aren't free-free, and blocked the copyright-encumbered logo. Mozilla was protecting it's trademark and branding. Debian calling it iceweasel basically replaced the branding so that it could be used under Debian's rules. It turned out to be a fairly amicable result - debian still gets the software with full utility, and mozilla keeps their branding coherent (branding is important to making money with any model, but especially freemium). Also, this licensing stoush was ten years ago; it's not like it's fresh wounds.

matzipan 11y ago
So which part of replacing the Firefox brand with Iceweasel is coherent branding?
- yebyen 11y ago
  It's not just replacing the Firefox brand, it's replacing the onus of responsibility for the package. When Debian packages your software, they insert their own patches, they do their own disparate issue tracking and release archive management, they are quite effectively a separate product. If they called it Firefox, by Debian, it would be equally damaging to the Mozilla mark (in a sense of trademark law.) If they didn't do their usual Debian thing with the patches and the release management, it would be similarly damaging to the Debian mark, so-to-speak. (All packages get this treatment, no upstream software release vendor gets special privileges.)
  - davidgerard 11y ago
    This goes way back - I was a documentation volunteer in the run-up to the Mozilla 1.0 launch in 2002, and Debian did all manner of weird things to their Mozilla package that we then had to sort through to distinguish from the mozilla.org binaries (e.g. someone had to make a list of Debian Mozilla useragents so we weren't specifically checking their behaviour).
- sp332 11y ago

neerdowell 11y ago

> or including proprietary services (e.g. Pocket) forcing the creation of the Icecat fork. Your timeline is off by about a decade. IceCat was first released in 2008 and the GNUzilla project has existed since 2005. Firefox added Pocket support in 2015.

bobajeff 11y ago

I would love to use a email/webmail service from Mozilla. It would have to be ads supported but there might not be as much of a stigma against it as with suggested tiles.

50CNT 11y ago
I mean there is Mozilla Thunderbird, but it hasn't been the focus of much development since 2012, with intention to decouple it from Firefox development in 2015. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Thunderbird https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Thunderbird] [https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/thunderbird/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/thunderbird/]
- bobajeff 11y ago
  That's just a client we were talking about a service. (eg. Yahoo Mail, Gmail etc.)
xentronium 11y ago
I agree, email from mozilla would be a killer. I'd pay for it.

drdaeman 11y ago

> a really Free email service What do you mean, exactly? Service that's Free as in "Free Software"? We have enough of free MTA, MDA and MRA software, and while they can be always improved further there's need to start a new project. There are also a lot of packaging efforts, where anyone can find what they'll be pleased with (from source tarballs to build to one-click "rent a server and provision everything there, pre-configured" web-based buttons). And Mozilla have finally ditched their MUA (Thunderbird) recently, so I somewhat doubt they'll venture in that field again, even if they'd decide to make a web-based MUA (instead of desktop software) this time. Service with some nice-to-hear policies? There are enough services that do all sort of pinky promises (and, I must admit, some try to bring some technological measures, but core email protocols don't allow much here, so it's mostly still relies on trust) of privacy, security and all sorts of stuff. Not sure if we need another one. Something else?

freehunter 11y ago
A Gmail that doesn't sniff your emails to serve ads to you or hand them over to the government, that's based on a FOSS project and can be hosted on your own server if you'd like to. Throw in an encryption option and you have a winner.

JohnTHaller 11y ago

> IMHO, Mozilla should absorb the Tor project Tor has too many legal and ethical issues around it for Mozilla to take that kind of risk. > And stop attacking the Linux distros for the Firefox trademark (forcing them to create the Iceweasel fork) or including proprietary services (e.g. Pocket) forcing the creation of the Icecat fork. Debian made a bunch of changes to Firefox and was still calling it Firefox. Debian also objected to Firefox's trademark policy despite Debian's trademark policy for their own trademark being virtually identical. This happened years ago and years before Pocket even existed. Pocket code in Firefox is open source, you can examine it yourself. And, due to lazy loading, it's never even called if you don't interact with it. You can right-click and remove the button and never worry about it again. Using Pocket was to add a much-requested feature to Firefox without Mozilla having to invest to development hours into building something that already existed.

lmm 11y ago
I don't think Debian "objected". Mozilla's trademark rules are not compatible with the DFSG, therefore Debian can't distribute an officially branded Firefox. I do think the ideal thing would be for Mozilla to distribute Firefox packaged in such a fashion that the branding can easily be swapped out (in the same way that e.g. Redhat isolates its trademarked material to a couple of packages and documents exactly what you need to replace if you want to distribute your own modified version of Redhat) so that there would be no need for a full fork.
- carussell 11y ago
  Two things: 1. It's true that the Debian didn't initiate the schism. Mike Connor (Mozilla) told the Debian folks to stop distributing branded builds that weren't QAd by Mozilla. 2. When doing a build, it has always been trivial to create an unbranded version. Unbranded versions are what you'd get by default. At this point, I haven't run a build in years, but it would be surprising if this weren't still the case.
  - strcat 11y ago
    I don't think it's the case anymore. They used to name the releases and then brand it based on the name. The releases are treated as inconsequential now.

pcwalton 11y ago

> including proprietary services (e.g. Pocket) forcing the creation of the Icecat fork. What? GNU IceCat has nothing to do with Pocket. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_IceCat#Origins_of_the_name https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_IceCat#Origins_of_the_name

jldugger 11y ago

> including proprietary services (e.g. Pocket) forcing the creation of the Icecat fork. The search bar is an equally proprietary backend service, and pretty much universally funds Mozilla, but I don't hear many complaints about it.

toyg 11y ago
At the time it was implemented, it was controversial; but the overall sentiment was that it was a necessary evil to get Mozilla some stable funding. Also, OpenSearch is a standard and anyone could easily replace the default. Pocket was simply an extension that got bundled outright. After decades of Mozilla declining to include even uber-popular extensions in order to "keep up appearances" of being a neutral community project, they basically endorsed a random startup without any sort of consultation or public competition. That's what people objected to. If they had implemented a standard and just blessed Pocket as a reference implementation without bundling it, nobody would have complained.