439
Thunderbird "won't be adopting the firefox terms of use"
(mastodon.online)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2025
439 points (98.9% liked)
Open Source
38550 readers
188 users here now
All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!
Useful Links
- Open Source Initiative
- Free Software Foundation
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Software Freedom Conservancy
- It's FOSS
- Android FOSS Apps Megathread
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
- !libre_culture@lemmy.ml
- !libre_software@lemmy.ml
- !libre_hardware@lemmy.ml
- !linux@lemmy.ml
- !technology@lemmy.ml
Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Who is the moron at Mozilla that thought it would be a good idea to sell user information, and how much does he make a year?
$6M, but if you look at the California law that spurred this change, the Privacy Policy that hasn't changed since July 2024, and the revised ToS, this looks mostly like a really, really, really stupid communication error.
It's one of those cases where legally, "sell" includes things that most people wouldn't consider a sale in normal parlance, but Mozilla has to comply with the overbroad legal definition; meanwhile, they don't appear to be fundamentally changing anything about how they're operating.
ETA: I'm still moving to LibreWolf (and maybe Ladybird later on). I'm not a lawyer, and expecting people like me to parse legal definitions of commonly understood words is just asinine.
Like what, any specific examples?
I have been hearing this repeatedly as a talking point from people defending Firefox but without any specific example of what they do and don’t allow themselves to take and sell, it rings quite hollow.
They could tell us precisely what they're selling, and to whom, and give us a button to say "hell no", and it'd be largely fine. Instead, it's a bunch of "oh, you wouldn't understand"