4 ms·

Meanwhile FireFox just removed their commitment to not sell user data. Its their “Don’t be evil” moment https://www.osnews.com/story/141825/mozilla-deletes-pro

Meanwhile FireFox just removed their commitment to not sell user data. Its their “Don’t be evil” moment https://www.osnews.com/story/141825/mozilla-deletes-promise-not-to-sell-firefox-users-data/ https://www.osnews.com/story/141825/mozilla-deletes-promise-...

cma 2y ago
> Nope. Never have, never will. Promissory estoppel maybe? Stronger case for it if you ever paid them for anything after this promise.
- lp0_on_fire 2y ago
  Given most EULAs contain standard tech boilerplate that paraphrases to "We can change anything about this agreement at any time without warning or notice to you", I doubt it.
bink 2y ago
It's really hard to take someone seriously when they say things like this: > For years I’ve been warning about this inevitable outcome, and for just as many years people told me I was overreacting, that it wouldn’t happen, that I was crazy. The removal of that language is important but this person is trying to make it about themselves.
- CursedUrn 2y ago
  I can understand them being frustrated
preisschild 2y ago
Independent FOSS forks of firefox without Mozilla services / tracking exist https://librewolf.net/ https://librewolf.net/
- orphea 2y ago
  They are not prepared to maintain a fork of Firefox: https://codeberg.org/librewolf/issues/issues/2252#issuecomment-2886286 https://codeberg.org/librewolf/issues/issues/2252#issuecomme...
  - GoblinSlayer 2y ago
    If librewolf is not a fork, then what is it?
    - oblio 2y ago
      I think their point is that they build on top of Firefox. If Firefox died tomorrow, Librewolf would die with it.
    - cleansheets 2y ago
      It’s a downstream patch. Changes are recorded, then applied to the latest upstream version (Firefox) then packaged and sent as an update (LibreWolf)
      - phil294 2y ago
        In other words, a fork? Or how does the semantics of patch/changes/update differ in any way from maintaining a fork? The packaging has nothing to do with this. It may not be a well-maintained fork, the maintainers might not see themselves capable of adding features and bugfixes on their own, but a fork is a fork.
        abustamam 2y ago
        Wikipedia calls it a fork https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LibreWolf https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LibreWolf It may just be semantics though.
        marcthe12 2y ago
        I think the distinction is a soft fork or a hard fork. A soft fork is just a patchset over upstream and some people do not call it a fork. Hard fork mean that you are diverging from upstream, you do not longer follow upstream and you are fully separate from the upstream
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
mahkeiro 2y ago
I think that quoting Anthill in the osnews comment this part was left out: It would be only fair to include the part that was added to the FAQ too: > It seems like every company on the web is buying and selling my data. You’re probably no different. Mozilla doesn’t sell data about you (in the way that most people think about “selling data“), and we don’t buy data about you. Since we strive for transparency, and the LEGAL definition of “sale of data“ is extremely broad in some places, we’ve had to step back from making the definitive statements you know and love. We still put a lot of work into making sure that the data that we share with our partners (which we need to do to make Firefox commercially viable) is stripped of any identifying information, or shared only in the aggregate, or is put through our privacy preserving technologies (like OHTTP)

cma 2y ago

> Nope. Never have, never will. Promissory estoppel maybe? Stronger case for it if you ever paid them for anything after this promise.

lp0_on_fire 2y ago
Given most EULAs contain standard tech boilerplate that paraphrases to "We can change anything about this agreement at any time without warning or notice to you", I doubt it.

bink 2y ago

It's really hard to take someone seriously when they say things like this: > For years I’ve been warning about this inevitable outcome, and for just as many years people told me I was overreacting, that it wouldn’t happen, that I was crazy. The removal of that language is important but this person is trying to make it about themselves.

CursedUrn 2y ago
I can understand them being frustrated

preisschild 2y ago

Independent FOSS forks of firefox without Mozilla services / tracking exist https://librewolf.net/ https://librewolf.net/

orphea 2y ago
They are not prepared to maintain a fork of Firefox: https://codeberg.org/librewolf/issues/issues/2252#issuecomment-2886286 https://codeberg.org/librewolf/issues/issues/2252#issuecomme...
- GoblinSlayer 2y ago
  If librewolf is not a fork, then what is it?
  - oblio 2y ago
    I think their point is that they build on top of Firefox. If Firefox died tomorrow, Librewolf would die with it.
  - cleansheets 2y ago
    It’s a downstream patch. Changes are recorded, then applied to the latest upstream version (Firefox) then packaged and sent as an update (LibreWolf)
    - phil294 2y ago
      In other words, a fork? Or how does the semantics of patch/changes/update differ in any way from maintaining a fork? The packaging has nothing to do with this. It may not be a well-maintained fork, the maintainers might not see themselves capable of adding features and bugfixes on their own, but a fork is a fork.
      - abustamam 2y ago
        Wikipedia calls it a fork https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LibreWolf https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LibreWolf It may just be semantics though.
      - marcthe12 2y ago
        I think the distinction is a soft fork or a hard fork. A soft fork is just a patchset over upstream and some people do not call it a fork. Hard fork mean that you are diverging from upstream, you do not longer follow upstream and you are fully separate from the upstream

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

mahkeiro 2y ago

I think that quoting Anthill in the osnews comment this part was left out: It would be only fair to include the part that was added to the FAQ too: > It seems like every company on the web is buying and selling my data. You’re probably no different. Mozilla doesn’t sell data about you (in the way that most people think about “selling data“), and we don’t buy data about you. Since we strive for transparency, and the LEGAL definition of “sale of data“ is extremely broad in some places, we’ve had to step back from making the definitive statements you know and love. We still put a lot of work into making sure that the data that we share with our partners (which we need to do to make Firefox commercially viable) is stripped of any identifying information, or shared only in the aggregate, or is put through our privacy preserving technologies (like OHTTP)