> This does not give Mozilla any ownership in that content. I actually disagree, fundamentally. This is digital content, so "ownership" isn't the same as for

> This does not give Mozilla any ownership in that content. I actually disagree, fundamentally. This is digital content, so "ownership" isn't the same as for physical stuff. Lets look at analogies: "piracy isn't theft" (because the original owner still keeps their copy!). Also, surely if Mozilla can sell your data, they must have owned it first! But you also keep your data! So clearly, to "own" digital stuff is different from "owning" physical stuff. Then, how do we define "own" for digital stuff? I'd say a sufficient definition would be, "possess and can do whatever". So when Mozilla says "nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license [...] necessary to operate Firefox", and then in subsequent paragraphs argue that selling ads is necessary to operate Firefox... Yes, we can add two and two together. Now, apologists will claim that the literal statement in new terms is "nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license for the purpose of doing as you request with the content you input in Firefox", but obviously, the DO NOT NEED A LICENSE for doing as you request in Firefox (i.e. sending POST requests directly to third parties), so clearly there's some shady business involved.