4 ms·

I am not sure it would make a difference to the courts.

vbezhenar 8y ago
Firefox is just a platform to run addons, like Windows is OS to run programs. Do you think that Microsoft should curate software allowed for users to run?
- betterunix2 8y ago
  IANAL but my perspective has been that the courts care more about your ability to control what runs on a "platform" than about who hosts what. So if Firefox in its default configuration will only run addons that Mozilla approves, then the courts might not care about where the addon is hosted or how users technically receive it, and could just order Mozilla not to sign the addon. My personal opinion is that curation is fine if users can opt-out of it. There is value in having someone certifying that the software you are installing is not malware, or even that it meets some threshold for quality (e.g. does not drain the battery), but users should have the ability to pick the curator or to have no curation at all. That said, it is a totally separate argument from whether or not the courts would care about how software is distributed, and totally separate from how the courts will view the role of a software curator (and whether or not courts will insist that curators refuse to certify software that does certain things, like blocking paywalls).
  - Spivak 8y ago
    Wouldn't Mozilla just have to say that any add-on that isn't malware is eligible to be signed and that it's a security feature, not a tool for curation of content.
- dooglius 8y ago
  FWIW Microsoft _does_ do this, it's just that the alternative is a click-through warning, whereas it's more difficult to install un-curated addons in Firefox.
dooglius 8y ago
Well, for one thing, it would make a takedown request like this impossible to enforce.
- betterunix2 8y ago
  No, it would mean that the takedown request is satisfied by the Mozilla revoking signatures on the addons, something which the signer can always do (e.g. at a minimum they can push a new signature key and re-sign all the other addons).
  - dooglius 8y ago
    Good point. Is there any legal precedent (in the US) for forcing signature revocation though? It seems to run up against the first amendment since Mozilla would essentially be making a statement that "the addon with hash 1234 does not contain malware", which should be legally protected speech.

Firefox is just a platform to run addons, like Windows is OS to run programs. Do you think that Microsoft should curate software allowed for users to run?

betterunix2 8y ago
IANAL but my perspective has been that the courts care more about your ability to control what runs on a "platform" than about who hosts what. So if Firefox in its default configuration will only run addons that Mozilla approves, then the courts might not care about where the addon is hosted or how users technically receive it, and could just order Mozilla not to sign the addon. My personal opinion is that curation is fine if users can opt-out of it. There is value in having someone certifying that the software you are installing is not malware, or even that it meets some threshold for quality (e.g. does not drain the battery), but users should have the ability to pick the curator or to have no curation at all. That said, it is a totally separate argument from whether or not the courts would care about how software is distributed, and totally separate from how the courts will view the role of a software curator (and whether or not courts will insist that curators refuse to certify software that does certain things, like blocking paywalls).
- Spivak 8y ago
  Wouldn't Mozilla just have to say that any add-on that isn't malware is eligible to be signed and that it's a security feature, not a tool for curation of content.
dooglius 8y ago
FWIW Microsoft _does_ do this, it's just that the alternative is a click-through warning, whereas it's more difficult to install un-curated addons in Firefox.

dooglius 8y ago

Well, for one thing, it would make a takedown request like this impossible to enforce.

betterunix2 8y ago
No, it would mean that the takedown request is satisfied by the Mozilla revoking signatures on the addons, something which the signer can always do (e.g. at a minimum they can push a new signature key and re-sign all the other addons).
- dooglius 8y ago
  Good point. Is there any legal precedent (in the US) for forcing signature revocation though? It seems to run up against the first amendment since Mozilla would essentially be making a statement that "the addon with hash 1234 does not contain malware", which should be legally protected speech.