Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 17th Dec 2017 19:39 UTC
Mozilla & Gecko clones

For a long time, it was just setting the default search provider to Google in exchange for a beefy stipend. Later, paid links in your new tab page were added. Then, a proprietary service, Pocket, was bundled into the browser - not as an addon, but a hardcoded feature. In the past few days, we’ve discovered an advertisement in the form of browser extension was sideloaded into user browsers. Whoever is leading these decisions at Mozilla needs to be stopped.

Mozilla garnered a lot of fully deserved goodwill with the most recent Firefox release, and here they are, jeopardising all that hard work. People expect this kind of nonsense from Google, Apple, or Microsoft - not Mozilla. Is it unfair to judge Mozilla much more harshly than those others? Perhaps, but that's a consequence of appealing to more demanding users when it comes to privacy and open source.

Thread beginning with comment 652141
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Damn
by WorknMan on Mon 18th Dec 2017 03:44 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Damn"
WorknMan
Member since:
2005-11-13

Nah, mozilla is doing this because it needs money, it's that simple.


I wish they'd just give us the option to pay real money to completely turn off the bullshit. I'm sure most wouldn't pay, but some of us would. Maybe like $20 a year to run it on all my devices.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Damn
by Alfman on Mon 18th Dec 2017 04:17 in reply to "RE[3]: Damn"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

WorknMan,

I wish they'd just give us the option to pay real money to completely turn off the bullshit. I'm sure most wouldn't pay, but some of us would. Maybe like $20 a year to run it on all my devices.


Yeah, I hear you. I suspect it would have to be on the honor system because many would install the "get out of my way" edition of FF and I'm not sure whether mozilla can sidestep the requirements of the MPL, which is an open source license allowing public redistribution.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Damn
by ahferroin7 on Mon 18th Dec 2017 13:39 in reply to "RE[4]: Damn"
ahferroin7 Member since:
2015-10-30

There's a quite significant difference between 'public redistribution' and not having to pay for certain behavior. Note that I'm not saying that the MPL permits the second case either (not that it would be enforceable anyway unless they required some kind of external verification that wasn't open source, since they have to provide the source code publicly), but the bit you're referring to does not preclude something like this (the original Doom game engine was publicly redistributable because of the way the demos were licensed, but you had to get a copy of the game files (by paying money in most cases) to play the full game).

Reply Parent Score: 2