4 ms·

This is a project by the Mozilla Foundation (as you can see from the URL), it has nothing to do with Mozilla Corporation or the Firefox browser. "Activism stuf

This is a project by the Mozilla Foundation (as you can see from the URL), it has nothing to do with Mozilla Corporation or the Firefox browser. "Activism stuff" is precisely what the Mozilla _Foundation_ is for.

tgsovlerkhgsel 6y ago
This should probably be made clearer to people who consider donating to the Mozilla Foundation, then. Because I bet many donate because they want to support Firefox.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  How should they make it clearer? Their donate page says the donations are to "carry out our mission to keep the Web open and free" and links to a FAQ that details what the donations are used for and how Firefox is separate.
  - freshsqueeze 6y ago
    should say something like "goes to some non-profit exec leeches"
    - jessaustin 6y ago
      It's a non-profit charity, right? Is any potential donor unaware of this phenomenon?
    - boomboomsubban 6y ago
      The Mozilla Foundation's 8 person board of directors seems to receive no salary, so your donation wouldn't pay for that.
  - tmzt 6y ago
    Except, "keep the web open and free" was a big part of the marketing around Firefox when the target was IE. The New York Times ad was paid for through donations to present an alternative to the closed ecosystem dominated by one browser that didn't follow open standards. https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/11/14/fast-for-good-launching-the-new-firefox-into-the-world/nyt_ad_large_2004/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/11/14/fast-for-good-launc... Early versions of Firefox featured links to various news organizations and stories pulled from their feeds, until certain jurisdictions threatened to block the browser entirely. At some point their missions may have diverged, but the marketing of both were closely intertwined. MoFo accepted donations and other sources of funds which it used, in part, to fund development of a browser by MoCo. Other projects came later, but the community's understanding of their respective roles remained the same. As a long-term observer I followed this closely when the Foundation and Commercial split was announced, and remember reassurance s about the core mission being loudly proclaimed. Here it is from the former CLW herself: https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2007/08/09/firefox-is-a-public-asset/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2007/08/09/firefox-is-a-public...
    - boomboomsubban 6y ago
      >The New York Times ad was paid for through donations While true, those donations were largely from sources connected to Netscape. If they had built a normal corporation, it'd be startup capital. >MoFo accepted donations and other sources of funds which it used, in part, to fund development of a browser by MoCo Mozilla Corporation saw $60 million in revenue in the first year, at no point were the donations a significant source of income. >remember reassurance s about the core mission being loudly proclaimed. Here's the actual "core mission" they launched at the time, note the pledge containing >Use the Mozilla assets (intellectual property such as copyrights and trademarks, infrastructure, funds, and reputation) to keep the Internet an open platform; https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/details/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/details/
  - anoncake 6y ago
    Sexist projects like Outreachy aren't required to keep the web open and free.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
csande17 6y ago
If the Mozilla Foundation really has nothing to do with the organization that develops Mozilla Firefox, they should consider using a name that isn't "Mozilla" or "Firefox". As it stands, the primary activity of the Foundation is to take money and goodwill earned by Firefox and divert it to unrelated activism.
- freshsqueeze 6y ago
  they don't care, millions have been going to mitchell baker's pocket for the last decades
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
cbsks 6y ago
“nothing to do with Mozilla Corporation or the Firefox browser” is a little strong “Firefox is maintained by the Mozilla Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Mozilla Foundation” https://donate.mozilla.org/en-US/faq/ https://donate.mozilla.org/en-US/faq/

tgsovlerkhgsel 6y ago

This should probably be made clearer to people who consider donating to the Mozilla Foundation, then. Because I bet many donate because they want to support Firefox.

boomboomsubban 6y ago
How should they make it clearer? Their donate page says the donations are to "carry out our mission to keep the Web open and free" and links to a FAQ that details what the donations are used for and how Firefox is separate.
- freshsqueeze 6y ago
  should say something like "goes to some non-profit exec leeches"
  - jessaustin 6y ago
    It's a non-profit charity, right? Is any potential donor unaware of this phenomenon?
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    The Mozilla Foundation's 8 person board of directors seems to receive no salary, so your donation wouldn't pay for that.
- tmzt 6y ago
  Except, "keep the web open and free" was a big part of the marketing around Firefox when the target was IE. The New York Times ad was paid for through donations to present an alternative to the closed ecosystem dominated by one browser that didn't follow open standards. https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/11/14/fast-for-good-launching-the-new-firefox-into-the-world/nyt_ad_large_2004/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/11/14/fast-for-good-launc... Early versions of Firefox featured links to various news organizations and stories pulled from their feeds, until certain jurisdictions threatened to block the browser entirely. At some point their missions may have diverged, but the marketing of both were closely intertwined. MoFo accepted donations and other sources of funds which it used, in part, to fund development of a browser by MoCo. Other projects came later, but the community's understanding of their respective roles remained the same. As a long-term observer I followed this closely when the Foundation and Commercial split was announced, and remember reassurance s about the core mission being loudly proclaimed. Here it is from the former CLW herself: https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2007/08/09/firefox-is-a-public-asset/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2007/08/09/firefox-is-a-public...
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    >The New York Times ad was paid for through donations While true, those donations were largely from sources connected to Netscape. If they had built a normal corporation, it'd be startup capital. >MoFo accepted donations and other sources of funds which it used, in part, to fund development of a browser by MoCo Mozilla Corporation saw $60 million in revenue in the first year, at no point were the donations a significant source of income. >remember reassurance s about the core mission being loudly proclaimed. Here's the actual "core mission" they launched at the time, note the pledge containing >Use the Mozilla assets (intellectual property such as copyrights and trademarks, infrastructure, funds, and reputation) to keep the Internet an open platform; https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/details/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/details/
- anoncake 6y ago
  Sexist projects like Outreachy aren't required to keep the web open and free.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

csande17 6y ago

If the Mozilla Foundation really has nothing to do with the organization that develops Mozilla Firefox, they should consider using a name that isn't "Mozilla" or "Firefox". As it stands, the primary activity of the Foundation is to take money and goodwill earned by Firefox and divert it to unrelated activism.

freshsqueeze 6y ago
they don't care, millions have been going to mitchell baker's pocket for the last decades
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

cbsks 6y ago

“nothing to do with Mozilla Corporation or the Firefox browser” is a little strong “Firefox is maintained by the Mozilla Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Mozilla Foundation” https://donate.mozilla.org/en-US/faq/ https://donate.mozilla.org/en-US/faq/