- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Critics said the new terms implied Mozilla was asking users for the rights to whatever data they input or upload through Firefox.
Critics said the new terms implied Mozilla was asking users for the rights to whatever data they input or upload through Firefox.
Firefox doesn’t need a TOU to access those. Those aren’t owned or operated by Mozilla. And there hasn’t been anything that has been added to Mozilla which would require such a change over the non-terms the application was provided under for twenty years.
Yes, and Firefox had one until 2014. They then replaced it with the MPL2.0, “a free software license, which gives you the right to run the program for any purpose, to study how it works, to give copies to your friends and to modify it to meet your needs better. There is no separate End User License Agreement (EULA).”
So clearly not required.
The article goes into the first point though.
Using those services on your behalf is, potentially (in a legal sense) use of your data. By providing some information to a third party, even if Firefox itself doesn’t itself use it. This may come from the fact that you don’t directly agree to terms with the third parties when you start using the browser, with safe browsing for example. So Firefox is in a sense using/sharing private information. And in the changing legal landscape this usage may fall under modern privacy laws, such as the one mentioned in the article.
I agree the old wording was bad, but I do see the reasoning behind the new one.