Mozilla's updated Terms of Use
Mozilla's updated Terms of Use
On Wednesday we shared that we’re introducing a new Terms of Use (TOU) and Privacy Notice for Firefox. Since then, we’ve been listening to some of our
TL;DR:
- "all rights" has been replaced with "rights necessary"
- Overall language of "operate Firefox" still remains, with a link to their Privacy Notice.
- "nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license" remains, but is explicitly limited to "the purpose of doing as you request with the content you input in Firefox"
- Removed references to their Acceptable Use Policy
Details from a developer and FOSS advocate POV:
This is not enough.
Mozilla has yet to comment on why this change was necessary, outside of some vague "legally we have to" language. While these updated Terms shift more control back to the user, it's simply not enough. The only reason Mozilla would need any sort of license from the user is if they are going to be doing something with it on their systems. Any local use is and continues to be fully covered by the Mozilla Public License, which is the current license used by Firefox.
The MPL includes an indemnity and liability clause, which protects Mozilla from anything you might do with their browser. I can't think of a single FOSS license that doesn't include these clauses.
Controlling an application within the confines of your local device does not require the application to have a license to your content. It is, from a legal perspective, a tool you are using to do your own stuff. We don't give chisels manufactures a license for statues we make, notebook companies licenses for stories we write. And on the other side of that coin, no one sues Mozilla or Google because someone accesses The Pirate Bay or fmovies using the browser.
But let's take Mozilla at their word for a second. Suppose there was a legal reason for licensing your data.
Does Mozilla intend to force the websites you visit to agree to their terms? There are two sides to the connection you make on a website. For the sake of argument, say I'm visiting Disney+, another company super picky about their copyrights. I enter "www.disneyplus.com" into my browser, agreeing to Mozilla license provision. In order to "operate Firefox", the license allows Firefox to go to Disney+, who then responds back with their catalog. If Mozilla needs a license from me for my data, surely they need a license from Disney for their data to "operate Firefox".
In what world do you think Disney is going to grant Mozilla a "nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license"? Their argument for any sort of licensing being necessary falls flat with this example right here.
Quick Edit here: their TOU assumes that you are the only license holder of content you upload using the browser. You cannot grant licenses to other people's content. So, in essence, you cannot upload a picture taken by your friend and if you do, the nature of these Terms allows your friend to sue Mozilla for copyright infringement. The very nature of asking for this license exposes them to liability for violations against copyright. Most websites have a clause that says something along the lines of "you agree that you have permission to share the content you upload to our servers and grant us a license to use that content as if it were you own" etc.
This isn't about your data within the local browser. This is about your data flowing through Mozilla. That's why they need the license. Their additional clause "This does not give Mozilla any ownership in that content" does absolutely nothing. A license, by it's nature, means that Mozilla doesn't own the content and seeks your permission to use it.
To Mozilla's credit, they removed references to their Acceptable Use Policy, but remains in place their ability to terminate your license to use Firefox for any reason, keeping Firefox firmly in the "Source Available" category.
Each person will need to decide whether Firefox fits in within their personal use of the internet. I, for one, am tired of my content being used without my express permission. My goal is to move to Waterfox by the end of March, if not sooner.
We're not morons here. I've heard people say "you don't understand the legalese behind it". What's to understand, it's all there in black and white. Legalese isn't some nuance language that only lawyers can understand. In fact I think the trick is trying to read what they're not saying. For example
Rights necessary
Who defines what's necessary? Why not just write them out here? Is necessary training an AI? Handing it to data brokers? It's vague and useless.
The fact that they would presume at all to tell me how to use a program on my own computer is ridiculous. They showed their cards. They lost a 20 year Firefox veteran, and I've already have been switching my friends and family off of it.
The funny thing is that many of the comments I've read around "you don't understand the legalese" are often people who are fully misinterpreting the language.
And to date, none of these comments have yet to say clearly why this language is needed for a fully local installation. Many of the people who say so mistakenly equate Firefox, a product with no legal rights, with Mozilla, a corporation with legal obligations.
Yeah, as of yesterday I'm now using LibreWolf.
the purpose of doing as you request with the content you input in Firefox"
Lol, replaced one bit of ambiguous rationalization with another, which holds no weight anyway. When it comes down to it, you'll use any collected data any way you wish to do whatever you want, and thumb tour nose at the users who helped you get there.
Nah, you stepped all in it on this one, and really exposed yourself and your intentions, especially since many of us have been around since before WWW even existed.
Firefox is becoming Microsoft Office for the Mac. And if you don't understand that, you probably weren't alive at the time.
I'd send this to Mozilla/FF, but it's a waste of bits.
I'd say it's worth it. The fact that they've made adjustments means they are listening.