It's probably both. The only upside for Mozilla is that making Gecko available is the right thing to do. Which, for a nonprofit, matters, and I'm sure that hav

It's probably both. The only upside for Mozilla is that making Gecko available is the right thing to do. Which, for a nonprofit, matters, and I'm sure that having an Electron-equivalent is the kind of thing that would be considered cool by staff. But there is the downside that it makes it easier to build browsers which would compete with Firefox for the shrinking niche that is "doesn't run Chrome or Safari". I guess you could make a case that such browsers would take at least as much share from Chrome as Firefox, maybe more even; but you could make the other case as well. When you add the additional downside that it's probably many man-decades of work to do it at all, well, then it doesn't happen. Although the existence of GeckoView implies that Firefox and Gecko aren't as tightly coupled as they could be.