On Saturday, 01-03-2025 at 09:58 ajz3dee@gmail.com wrote:

Is this real? Firefox just introduced the "Terms of Use" document, that includes some really disturbing entries.

I agree, that is disturbing.

My first initial thoughts is that this will relate to A.I. and the need for data to train A.I. Both for the company's benefit, and conceptually for your (our) benefit too [if you believe that].

George.

The Worst Firefox Update Ever
https://youtu.be/E4JOnQY_qbo

Info from Mozilla: https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/firefox-news/firefox-terms-of-use/

The "Terms of use" themselves: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/terms/firefox/

Excerpt from ToS:

You give Mozilla all rights necessary to operate Firefox, including processing data as we describe in the Firefox Privacy Notice,
as well as acting on your behalf to help you navigate the internet.
When you upload or input information through Firefox, you hereby
grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to use that information to help you navigate, experience, and interact with
online content as you indicate with your use of Firefox.

Nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to our uploaded data? Is
this some kind of dystopian EU stuff we're dealing with here? Why
suddenly Mozilla felt the need for introducing this (euphemistically speaking) controversial document?

What's even worse, is this entry from the second link:

Although we’ve historically relied on our open source license for
Firefox and public commitments to you, we are building in a much
different technology landscape today. We want to make these
commitments abundantly clear and accessible.

What's going on? And most importantly, what is Debian's stance on this?

Best regards,
AJ

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

I don't believe that this applies to copies of Firefox installed from
the Debian archive. I think that it is only for binaries installed from
the Mozilla site. To make it apply to the Debian package the installer
would have to pop of an "I agree" clicky. Not likely.

Some restrictions apply if you open a Mozilla account and use things
like "sync", obviously.
--
John Hasler
john@sugarbit.com
Elmwood, WI USA

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2/28/25 5:58 PM, ajz3dee@gmail.com wrote:

Is this real? Firefox just introduced the "Terms of Use" document, that includes some really disturbing entries.

The Worst Firefox Update Ever
https://youtu.be/E4JOnQY_qbo

Info from Mozilla: https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/firefox-news/firefox-terms-of-use/

The "Terms of use" themselves: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/terms/firefox/

Excerpt from ToS:

You give Mozilla all rights necessary to operate Firefox, including
processing data as we describe in the Firefox Privacy Notice,
as well as acting on your behalf to help you navigate the internet.
When you upload or input information through Firefox, you hereby
grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to use that
information to help you navigate, experience, and interact with
online content as you indicate with your use of Firefox.

Nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to our uploaded data? Is
this some kind of dystopian EU stuff we're dealing with here? Why
suddenly Mozilla felt the need for introducing this (euphemistically speaking) controversial document?

What's even worse, is this entry from the second link:

Although we’ve historically relied on our open source license for
Firefox and public commitments to you, we are building in a much
different technology landscape today. We want to make these
commitments abundantly clear and accessible.

What's going on? And most importantly, what is Debian's stance on this?

Best regards,
AJ

If you track what Mozilla has been doing in the last few years, they
profess very little interest in browsers or engineering them. They
recently bought an advertising company, and most of their money has been
spent on political causes. What all this means is that they probably
don't care about whether you do or don't like their terms of service,
because they have an entirely different agenda than making better
browsers or making them more popular. Firefox's market share has
plummeted, despite a multi-million dollar corporation and foundation
behind it. This doesn't happen because people or asleep at the wheel. It happens because it's made to happen.

I hate Google's web engine being the virtual monopoly, which is why I
favor Firefox. But Mozilla is busy planting firecrackers under
petrol/gasoline cans, trying to destroy their own product. I'm hoping
for a fork (Zen?), but Brave is looking more promising.

As for Debian, I hope they take no position on this. It really isn't
something for Debian to comment on. It would be like if any other major
project decided to take a swan dive. It's not really a Debian issue;
it's a Mozilla issue. Similar or identical things have happened before.
Think MariaDB and MySQL.


Paul


Paul M. Foster
Personal Blog: http://noferblatz.com
Company Site: http://quillandmouse.com
Software Projects: https://gitlab.com/paulmfoster

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 11:05:01PM -0600, John Hasler wrote:

I don't believe that this applies to copies of Firefox installed from
the Debian archive.

I'm convinced that they'll try to weasel themselves through. Given
the hyperventilation many states show these days with "AI" (they
seem to have swallowed the whole bait presented to them by OpenAI
and their bros. With hooks in there.

I think that it is only for binaries installed from
the Mozilla site. To make it apply to the Debian package the installer
would have to pop of an "I agree" clicky. Not likely.

See above. Thinks which seemed illegal just yesterday might become
legal because... PROGRE$$!

Cheers
--
t

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iF0EABECAB0WIQRp53liolZD6iXhAoIFyCz1etHaRgUCZ8Kk4QAKCRAFyCz1etHa RuVOAJ9izfX7voh+tFXXX/eP8T6nNhYiogCfT4XCyavVwiZfjwChQqcACVxAmAY=
=Rm6W
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 1 Mar 2025 00:27:44 -0500
"Paul M. Foster" <paulf@quillandmouse.com> wrote:

[...] I'm hoping
for a fork (Zen?), but Brave is looking more promising.

Could GNU IceCat[1] be an option to have as .deb package?

As for Debian, I hope they take no position on this. It really isn't something for Debian to comment on. It would be like if any other
major project decided to take a swan dive. It's not really a Debian
issue; it's a Mozilla issue. Similar or identical things have
happened before. Think MariaDB and MySQL.

If this questions affects the DFSG, Debian must take a position. The
obvious elephant in the room is the question whether Firefox can be
part of the official distribution. The compatibility question between
Mozilla ToS and DFSG needs to be enlightened by someone with more legal expertise than me.

[1] https://www.gnu.org/software/gnuzilla/

--
kind regards
Frank

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQGzBAEBCgAdFiEE86z15c6qwvuAkhy+zDIN/uu9BloFAmfC9KMACgkQzDIN/uu9 BloPLQv/fQpZQH5m+W0I1p61lav/h5YbCXjuWA55OAi+6HlxjVjh3h2A+dBNUExs QpMd/j2qzfCX1T4ockGIXnwYVqMFbLdFTFa523nN+jCdUK0km3N9/ygmrxT1pgHy 5vfouFzmud0sqUIlX1PObeC4EVnVUiB0cn6xDIVIxht6PJpWdANp0sHKa39n1k5N n847TrhJHT6rCeT9iaCIrqjYDIaKt/YENaFDq6blWOPWkV23gIMXIEULDjh5EKmB VFEc/T3XH/SRu/XO7i/lDGhnJhm72tnKilNdyz/uaCHsz4QtcLhhzUL0qKgOKzO7 wwRpfQ/Q2Ww+o4HjcC1ki85oe/LmhrxoSPOmTHCzG9p8VM0IERsDNq7sdJCV/KuR lCYcg2eZRoL9DNgc+UXxsJWxohTG79RfKUcb7VBBx1tW7s1snuv+N2CQDxumL4wo i/a32q8Nk5KTC0GVytiPyacb4SBx6YoZTXh81zJ5+q7rphzBzBqOldiTI8e++CW9
CBets4Du
=E3Y7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

It's worth reading this too.

https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/update-on-terms-of-use/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/1/25 07:20, Richmond wrote:

It's worth reading this too.

https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/update-on-terms-of-use/

Which, while rewriting it to use more palatable language, does not
change it to where it only needs lots of salt.

The thing that irks me is that they have replaced my daily tour icons 
on the opening screen with their obviously for sale commercial links
which now occupy many of my favorite spots with their BS links I've yet
to grace with a single click. Displacing my own popularity choices. 
Color me disgruntled.

Cheers, Gene Heskett, CET.

--
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author, 1940)
If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.
- Louis D. Brandeis

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/1/25 7:53 AM, gene heskett wrote:

On 3/1/25 07:20, Richmond wrote:

It's worth reading this too.

https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/update-on-terms-of-use/

Which, while rewriting it to use more palatable language, does not
change it to where it only needs lots of salt.

The thing that irks me is that they have replaced my daily tour icons on
the opening screen with their obviously for sale commercial links which
now occupy many of my favorite spots with their BS links I've yet to
grace with a single click. Displacing my own popularity choices. Color
me disgruntled.

Cheers, Gene Heskett, CET.

All this makes me glad that I stuck with SeaMonkey since days of Netscape !

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/1/25 09:20, Richmond wrote:

gene heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> writes:

On 3/1/25 07:20, Richmond wrote:

It's worth reading this too.

https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/update-on-terms-of-use/

Which, while rewriting it to use more palatable language, does not
change it to where it only needs lots of salt.

The thing that irks me is that they have replaced my daily tour icons
on the opening screen with their obviously for sale commercial links
which now occupy many of my favorite spots with their BS links I've
yet to grace with a single click. Displacing my own popularity
choices.  Color me disgruntled.

Cheers, Gene Heskett, CET.

Do you mean the sponsored icons? They are optional, and you can switch
them off by clicking on the settings icon top right.

128.7.0esr (64-bit)

Thank you, that looks far more useful.

.

Cheers, Gene Heskett, CET.
--
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author, 1940)
If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.
- Louis D. Brandeis

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

* On 2025 01 Mar 08:33 -0600, Greg wrote:

On 2025-03-01, gene heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> wrote:

On 3/1/25 07:20, Richmond wrote:

It's worth reading this too.

https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/update-on-terms-of-use/

Which, while rewriting it to use more palatable language, does not
change it to where it only needs lots of salt.

What about Chromium? Or let's write one ourselves!!!

Or just patch out the objectionable parts as long as that is possible. Unfortunately, whatever Mozilla wants to add in the effort of
monetizing Firefox will likely be so entwined in the source that it will
be next to impossible to patch out, easily, if at all.

I guess that would be easier said than done.

Herding cats?

I suspect that this is being discussed by the various distributions and
what this might mean. Is a fork and collaborative browser project based
on Gecko in our future?

Is a greater effort on Webkit based browsers such as Epihpany a desired
path?

Is this all to do of nothing (I don't think so but some might)?

- Nate

--
"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
possible worlds. The pessimist fears this is true."
Web: https://www.n0nb.us
Projects: https://github.com/N0NB
GPG fingerprint: 82D6 4F6B 0E67 CD41 F689 BBA6 FB2C 5130 D55A 8819


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iF0EABECAB0WIQSC1k9rDmfNQfaJu6b7LFEw1VqIGQUCZ8NMvQAKCRD7LFEw1VqI Gd1TAJ481ll5PpRTMA08a6etQQT4Y0nBeACfXumBMRpQndzfMvFlG37CQPf6D04=
=DQIj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

gene heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> writes:

On 3/1/25 07:20, Richmond wrote:

It's worth reading this too.

https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/update-on-terms-of-use/

Which, while rewriting it to use more palatable language, does not
change it to where it only needs lots of salt.

The thing that irks me is that they have replaced my daily tour icons 
on the opening screen with their obviously for sale commercial links
which now occupy many of my favorite spots with their BS links I've
yet to grace with a single click. Displacing my own popularity
choices.  Color me disgruntled.

Cheers, Gene Heskett, CET.

Do you mean the sponsored icons? They are optional, and you can switch
them off by clicking on the settings icon top right.

128.7.0esr (64-bit)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat Mar 1, 2025 at 11:50 AM GMT, Frank Guthausen wrote:

If this questions affects the DFSG, Debian must take a position. The
obvious elephant in the room is the question whether Firefox can be
part of the official distribution. The compatibility question between
Mozilla ToS and DFSG needs to be enlightened by someone with more legal expertise than me.

Simple answer: these (awful) terms apply to *binaries* supplied by
Mozilla, not source. So, Debian is unaffected.

--
Please do not CC me for listmail.

👱🏻 Jonathan Dowland
✎ jmtd@debian.org
🔗 https://jmtd.net

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, 04-03-2025 at 21:05 Jonathan Dowland wrote:

On Sat Mar 1, 2025 at 11:50 AM GMT, Frank Guthausen wrote:

If this questions affects the DFSG, Debian must take a position. The obvious elephant in the room is the question whether Firefox can be
part of the official distribution. The compatibility question between Mozilla ToS and DFSG needs to be enlightened by someone with more legal expertise than me.

Simple answer: these (awful) terms apply to *binaries* supplied by
Mozilla, not source. So, Debian is unaffected.

It is pleasing to hear this.

--
Please do not CC me for listmail.

👱🏻 Jonathan Dowland
✎ jmtd@debian.org
🔗 https://jmtd.net

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Jonathan Dowland" <jmtd@debian.org> writes:

On Sat Mar 1, 2025 at 11:50 AM GMT, Frank Guthausen wrote:

If this questions affects the DFSG, Debian must take a position. The
obvious elephant in the room is the question whether Firefox can be
part of the official distribution. The compatibility question between
Mozilla ToS and DFSG needs to be enlightened by someone with more legal
expertise than me.

Simple answer: these (awful) terms apply to *binaries* supplied by
Mozilla, not source. So, Debian is unaffected.

I looked at about:buildconfig for Firefox ESR on Debian, and it says it
is built from a Mozilla source:

Source

Built from https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-esr128/rev/f3783ad20bf40a11fb4b7ed088236c1a9f7be362

So won't it be doing the same thing? i.e. collecting the same
information?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue Mar 4, 2025 at 10:10 PM GMT, Richmond wrote:

I looked at about:buildconfig for Firefox ESR on Debian, and it says
it
is built from a Mozilla source:

Source

Built from https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-esr128/rev/f3783ad20bf40a11fb4b7ed088236c1a9f7be362

So won't it be doing the same thing? i.e. collecting the same
information?

Whether or not the data-gathering is enabled in the Debian builds (and
whether it's on by default in the sources), I don't know. I hope not.
But irrespectively, users of Debian's Firefox packages are not bound by Mozilla's EULA.


--
Please do not CC me for listmail.

👱🏻 Jonathan Dowland
✎ jmtd@debian.org
🔗 https://jmtd.net

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/5/25 03:46, Jonathan Dowland wrote:

On Tue Mar 4, 2025 at 10:10 PM GMT, Richmond wrote:

I looked at about:buildconfig for Firefox ESR on Debian, and it says it
is built from a Mozilla source:

Source

Built from
https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-esr128/rev/f3783ad20bf40a11fb4b7ed088236c1a9f7be362

So won't it be doing the same thing? i.e. collecting the same
information?

Whether or not the data-gathering is enabled in the Debian builds (and whether it's on by default in the sources), I don't know. I hope not.
But irrespectively, users of Debian's Firefox packages are not bound
by Mozilla's EULA.

I have no doubt its "on".   About 7 weeks ago, the dump line from my
basement sump pump froze up. Burned up the pump motor and flooded my
basement about a foot deep. Went online and got a new pump from amazon
for a $50 bill.  Flooded, couldn't get to the pit. Took 5 damned  weeks
to drain down and get basement systems, who put in that $12,000 drainage
system 15 years ago, to get around to charging me $1700 to replace the
pump, would not use the one I had.  Since then I can't see the weather
map of the tv station I was the Chief Engineer at for the last 18 years
of my working life, its all covered up by adv's from related service
companies. That flooding has cost me around 6G's so far as it wiped out
the water heater, a 25 foot upright freezer with over $1k of food in it
and my 3 year old clothes dryer. Out of warranty of course, motor ordered.

I gave my unlisted phone # to cvs so they could call me when a script
was ready, my phone exploded with spam and phishing calls the same day.
3 new calls on my answer box in the 12 minutes it took me to drive
home.  You can rightly suspect I'm upset.

Cheers, Gene Heskett, CET.

--
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author, 1940)
If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.
- Louis D. Brandeis

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Jonathan Dowland" <jmtd@debian.org> writes:

Whether or not the data-gathering is enabled in the Debian builds (and whether it's on by default in the sources), I don't know. I hope not.
But irrespectively, users of Debian's Firefox packages are not bound by Mozilla's EULA.

When upgrading the Firefox binary provided by Mozilla via Flatpak from
version 135 to 136, the primary visible change is the link for "End-User Rights" in the "About Firefox" dialog. If you don't actively check that
page, you won't be informed of any changes to the Terms of Service, nor
will you be presented with an "I agree" click-through. Consequently,
depending on your jurisdiction, it may be unclear whether you have
entered into a new agreement with Mozilla, even if click-wrap agreements
are considered valid.

I suppose the ToS are primarily relevant if you utilize Mozilla
services, such as the browser sync feature. However, the distinction
between a standalone application and a service is increasingly blurred
today. It would be nice to know exactly what information the Debian
build of Firefox is sending to Mozilla if you don't opt-in to any
Mozilla service.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Jonathan Dowland wrote:

Whether or not the data-gathering is enabled in the Debian builds (and whether it's on by default in the sources), I don't know. I hope not. But irrespectively, users of Debian's Firefox packages are not bound by
Mozilla's EULA.

Have you confirmed this with a lawyer?

--
see shy jo

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEKKUAw1IH6rcvbA8l2xLbD/BfjzgFAmfMck4ACgkQ2xLbD/Bf jzgHqBAAtUZEPJAUajWyBEJZkjynRvq6P+p1s58Hb3zuCoOjem3UO4oy9THCm4dK aRtGD+1CNTipAYXs+blwqCoeqcAJqh7Pme8DGhtOf+4bnzz09zoD9Dwy/lREyClS MC3JWqTiHgf729khpU8YXRgCnLSpkvvL4N51olMpQar0VVrm1zsRMkTtEcU6wXtk CsMXXDKn0sFiRGxKKxlEBPa+rxxqCVJh9cyPjlU9b20ejZNt4oHqpi1BE6gAfACe yzChB/dXWLHp9Y5T2/luCqdOeX/rzi6oTLs3tWRzIsP1+RUHYkjEIQF7jxR5S9MH 81lUO8YdHF1+d+1NmatJbKMonjeiZDvCgTbxD2Rt+SFxxo3HN7aTz9UWRuCAnMMs rx7Y+DoweuacjxkXWBuLffFsytDuV1Z5J5uAUmmGWq6KsIhMLh08lhrHvycNnmMu e+Ltuh1IJsjLmqZtiXnBcGdal0LkPbrEWJUBbkJ2uNeBND7uVqq8IYYmOORoKz7O 19Rp4fgomwSBZOdL4/QqlDhqJwCFd0ZA/aLi/QHsCp5seKnKUFBlVxxp27cHPCxR qhchndU0KjP9KktZklqMaZ7KeARgBsEH6Kr9aow/W52oExq5xXfRTLj7uXaqMV/v OH8lVkWM+n/27hNdUN2qxJcYl5xMQLTphLAQiblXV3depGuT9DQ=
=umN/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Greg <curtyshoo@gmail.com> writes:

On 2025-03-08, Joey Hess <id@joeyh.name> wrote:

Jonathan Dowland wrote:

Whether or not the data-gathering is enabled in the Debian builds
(and whether it's on by default in the sources), I don't know. I
hope not. But irrespectively, users of Debian's Firefox packages are
not bound by Mozilla's EULA.

Have you confirmed this with a lawyer?

What? Why wouldn't Debian's Firefox sell or share user data whereas a non-Debian package or binary might or would, according to the vague
legalese of the new EULA? If Debian users are not bound, by what
method or procedure are they exempted?

The original remark was that the licence applied to binaries. So if you
compile the source, then the binary is your own, and not Mozilla's. But
what if the two are identical?

This reminds me of Palemoon, which although is open source, and
originally forked from firefox, has a licence on its binaries. So if you
don't want to be bound by that, you have to get the source without the
Palemoon trademark and compile it yourself.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> writes:

Greg <curtyshoo@gmail.com> writes:

On 2025-03-08, Joey Hess <id@joeyh.name> wrote:

Jonathan Dowland wrote:

Whether or not the data-gathering is enabled in the Debian builds
(and whether it's on by default in the sources), I don't know. I
hope not. But irrespectively, users of Debian's Firefox packages are
not bound by Mozilla's EULA.

Have you confirmed this with a lawyer?

What? Why wouldn't Debian's Firefox sell or share user data whereas a
non-Debian package or binary might or would, according to the vague
legalese of the new EULA? If Debian users are not bound, by what
method or procedure are they exempted?

The original remark was that the licence applied to binaries. So if you compile the source, then the binary is your own, and not Mozilla's. But
what if the two are identical?

This reminds me of Palemoon, which although is open source, and
originally forked from firefox, has a licence on its binaries. So if you don't want to be bound by that, you have to get the source without the Palemoon trademark and compile it yourself.

I see also in the build config for debian firefox esr it says:

--enable-official-branding

Probably this should be disable.

Where is Iceweasel?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 9/3/25 02:22, Richmond wrote:

<snip>

Where is Iceweasel?

Over there...

..
Bret Busby
Armadale
West Australia
(UTC+0800)
..............

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Richmond writes:

I see also in the build config for debian firefox esr it says:

--enable-official-branding

That does not affect end users of Debian's Firefox in any way. It just
means that Debian has permission from Mozilla to use the Firefox
trademark.
--
John Hasler
john@sugarbit.com
Elmwood, WI USA

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Hi,

On Sat, Mar 08, 2025 at 05:43:32PM -0000, Greg wrote:

Why wouldn't Debian's Firefox sell or share user data whereas a
non-Debian package or binary might or would, according to the vague
legalese of the new EULA? If Debian users are not bound, by what
method or procedure are they exempted?

By never having agreed to the EULA. Users of Mozilla's binary agree to
their EULA at the point of downloading it from them. Users of a binary
built and distributed by Debian are not presented with any such EULA.

Of course, the program might still collect user data and send it back to Mozilla and Mozilla might still sell it without us knowing. Maybe they
even would try to argue that any binary built from their source anywhere
is the same as agreeing to some terms they put on their web site.

It is not usually thought that people can be bound by an EULA they
haven't explicitly agreed to though.

There are a few things in the Debian archive that require agreement to
terms upon use. Perhaps the best known would be certbot and other ACME
clients. They go to quite some lengths to present the question at first
run time.

Thanks,
Andy

--
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat Mar 8, 2025 at 4:37 PM GMT, Joey Hess wrote:

Jonathan Dowland wrote:

Whether or not the data-gathering is enabled in the Debian builds (and
whether it's on by default in the sources), I don't know. I hope not. But
irrespectively, users of Debian's Firefox packages are not bound by
Mozilla's EULA.

Have you confirmed this with a lawyer?

No, I haven't.


--
Please do not CC me for listmail.

👱🏻 Jonathan Dowland
✎ jmtd@debian.org
🔗 https://jmtd.net

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Jonathan Dowland wrote:

Simple answer: these (awful) terms apply to *binaries* supplied by Mozilla, not source. So, Debian is unaffected.

Is this Debian's official position?

(Asking because it's being cited as such on social media.)

--
see shy jo

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEKKUAw1IH6rcvbA8l2xLbD/BfjzgFAmfQpbwACgkQ2xLbD/Bf jzgFjw/+LbzzXw4+CP05I9XNZ3SCnT3BWNy1pcSb3S4vGq6DwV3Dz6WXTMs6LhBr N+Ljkb5epr5swCM0WBMps30IrnGhHma94rTwY0kz7Nq0WP/fm4BdCSzVm03yuSSs OvV2YIZJMAnFqLb0egUT48acytCOpUEmh1HBFzWcF9WHh55HqOTJH+kR4Uk+H73+ bLwiPn9nAKSvuP7W6aTEnpdxFx8Ohz8cHnDOTuk0b3fSYNcCO8xNTHNdacuE+llK V1CxgSTXC40YoijJgSGj6ufpOKULhF4E5W4+SNaX7Suw7KpwWTfKc8TLbOKiBu6o lAQUTkkCOQgIbfqAP1vfXAPzLMJpidV7DL8s4tBl3zH6KtiaV7gYVP54rApaIs3M uRg6yOIRRxQaWxZoTaRRMqaktg5XaDxqCktUxQQB4kWmdh4sEjUtBxlSlS8IkayR lj/4JX2VSn1YQSBuMdfp0q6VddDJa0h1KPJwXAtJkm3QaPqnRuOfo6QAQ7dxDD+3 +a3m2C+VBMK4yFc3EARlYWFSOTTD/HgSLfAfVhyDhvjTgqIZMF5WkNJCcgBmoAx4 U5A/FdglYW6ceaRWoOkOT46gBwfwXPJTZ2MNoGd5mmEQOYTJVROmvMvz8z0dNk7J QbYfWCu1qLn9JA2U0yTtM0idlzGsHlG0z2PsNf+vEkqHLLMnTyE=
=9973
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue Mar 11, 2025 at 9:06 PM GMT, Joey Hess wrote:

Jonathan Dowland wrote:

Simple answer: these (awful) terms apply to *binaries* supplied by Mozilla, >> not source. So, Debian is unaffected.

Is this Debian's official position?

No, It's Mozilla's. Quoting [1],

Mozilla grants you a personal, non-exclusive license to install and
use the “Executable Code" version of the Firefox web browser, which is
the ready-to-run version of Firefox from an authorized source that you
can open and use right away.

and

These Terms only apply to the Executable Code version of Firefox, not
the Firefox source code.

[1] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/terms/firefox/

(Asking because it's being cited as such on social media.)

I don't have the authority to state an official position for Debian (I
wonder who, if anyone, would do). It's mildly concerning if anything I
write is misrepresented as such but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.


--
Please do not CC me for listmail.

👱🏻 Jonathan Dowland
✎ jmtd@debian.org
🔗 https://jmtd.net

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

. . . And it looks like all the dire predictions of Firefox breaking if
not updated right away, before the root cert expires, have been greatly exaggerated.

--
JHHL

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

I am free for a couple of hours now as well.

On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 12:18:49 -0400,
James H. H. Lampert wrote:

. . . And it looks like all the dire predictions of Firefox breaking
if not updated right away, before the root cert expires, have been
greatly exaggerated.

--
JHHL

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
On 2025-03-17 at 12:18, James H. H. Lampert wrote:

. . . And it looks like all the dire predictions of Firefox breaking
if not updated right away, before the root cert expires, have been
greatly exaggerated.

I read an article in the past few days which finally mentioned exactly
what it is that was expected to break.

Apparently it was A: extensions and B: certain (probably DRM-encumbered) in-browser media playback.

I'm keeping my eyes open for anything else that seems to break, but so
far I haven't seen anything. (Unless the weird page-blocking behavior I
started seeing from GameFAQs a few days ago is somehow related.)

--
The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEJCOqsZEc2qVC44pUBKk1jTQoMmsFAmfY1wMACgkQBKk1jTQo MmsuTA//cpm5Jkvh8g9nwgjCb4jGo7n45xP4E3F3mpvQaIvxe8D1Yvj5U2CLygfC KQDF9acmIywlt7+PF7ogTamTHQiyAp6jRmquBhsHUJdfgZvWXiN6UKw662G3JAkM ArJWeH0bSforACYQSAol34bl4CxobPbNqTSOpO+J6Qc2lSyrlYg9XrJwOxsXWjrK FW+SQRNa6SqXRdgg6JJ7kBBzoncpmWu04f/Sm4u5bEJbEdREUnf0moywxv9Tj+5+ O0qUj+CdN+9IQTK2aXx8EFVmkbc6zrXcwRvYYCteWpbhjNDB9DoVAOld8fV+FqKc 5I240nqlpchUof+NeoJ+YtjtgMe5650Ty/siE1k4qN8Ch2+qwOAxvVNAL2/MwjoX mg5f4Py5GKd9jVEKX8yYD1P0e0iuUJASzvMifEteoqFPn7t+sNKWmBcK+miVa8qg aHu/Fybdjj4Ojceifd8wvMTUrvSuyrmVGsDjkZqu+WGeV/wh3jLn6PuSpK50zWh4 1mNingsasVAlpBoyvcG8q76PeyZgRt71W+3yGaolv/p6VjDO8fDywqfml0Z25gBV N6XtCqcVp/agJYGXt7oHRwl5+e4wWDEhb5fCF0kwNOc0Yws8prZHsdV+yWAfoses R8LlmlCd6ckPZo94OyOtf7QMCR8a