[DiggyJohnson]

It's disingenuous to not explain the connection between these organizations. You're making it sound like they both happen to be named "Mozilla", when the reality is much more nuanced and interdependent, but in terms of their current funding and leadership, as well as their history.

[TheRealPomax]

No, it's not. Having worked at the foundation for a decade: to the vast majority of folks, the difference that matters is that "one makes Firefox, the other does campaigning/advocacy/outreach".

The history behind why there are two different entities is fascinating, but also doesn't change the fact that they are two completely different companies with completely different org charts and completely different focuses, united under the Mozilla manifesto.

(And even in the tech crowd, far too many people have no idea that there are two different things called Mozilla, and that their donations to the Foundation go to "the things the Foundation does", not Firefox)

[wheybags]

I'm aware and I hate it. I have zero interest in most of the crap the foundation gets up to, but I keep sending them money because it's the only way to "support Firefox". I want to support Firefox but I resent every cent I send them because I know they're wasting it on irrelevant crap.

I would really love to see a mass resignation of Firefox engineers, who then set up a new nonprofit + ff fork, and I could just switch my attention and my donations over there.

[TheRealPomax]

You can't fight for an open web just by making a browser. As dire as the Firefox market share is today, it'd be so much worse if the Foundation didn't spend its time and effort making sure the folks who don't give a shit, but should (e.g. politicians, law makers, lobbyists, news outlets, etc. etc.) learn why they should give a shit about the open web.

It sucks that you can't donate to Firefox directly, but calling what the foundation does "irrelevant" feels like you're not looking at the very real big picture of everyone wanting to lock down the web, all the time, everywhere.

[WesolyKubeczek]

Yes, but sometimes, just sometimes, I. Want. To. Support. The. Freaking. Browser.

I realize that there's some creative bookkeeping and bureaucratic barriers set up so that the only entity that can meaningfully support Firefox financially is Google in the end, but I hate the fact.

I'll probably donate to Andreas instead.

[TheRealPomax]

I'd much rather have the option to sponsor specific bugzilla issues, to be honest, I don't want to give Mozilla any money if it means it just pads out the CEO salary a bit (here's hoping whoever the new CEO will be takes the job in the understanding that it's not a million dollar position, with a sensible salary instead).

[wheybags]

If they ditched the other stuff, maybe they could afford to run Firefox without taking money from Google. That sounds much more interesting to me than acquiring pocket, for example. Or running thunderbird. Or any of the various grab bag of random charity type projects they have going on at any time - I'm sure some of them are interesting, but actually I just like Firefox and want it to stick around. I'm not interested in lobbying the government.

[asadotzler]

Now you're misrepresenting things. The Foundation fully and wholly owns the Corporation and if the Corporation ever strayed from the Foundation's intentions, the Foundation could literally shut it down or sell it off. Leaving off that critical detail -- and I was an original MoFo and original MoCo employee that predates anyone else here, suggests you've got some agenda here other than informing folks about the corporate structures.

[TheRealPomax]

It may feel like an important detail, but not one that's realistically relevant? In no real world would the foundation ever sell the corporation off? O_o

And no one at the foundation has any say over what happens to Firefox (certainly not during my tenure) which was the original point: the comment said "I guess Mozilla Foundation's running the Firefox project is not to everyones liking", which perpetuates the mistaken belief that the foundation manages Firefox.

(My agenda is mostly to get folks to understand that the foundation has nothing to do with Firefox, something that isn't particularly well-communicated to this day)

[NoboruWataya]

But the Corporation is wholly owned by the Foundation, isn't it? In that context, I don't see how it makes sense to see them as completely separate. The Corporation is answerable to the Foundation, the Corporation's profits go to the Foundation and I imagine it is similarly possible for the Foundation to fund the Corporation (unless its charter prohibits it or something).

[asadotzler]

Corporation profits don't go to the Foundation. That's not allowed. The Foundation owns the Corporation and you are correct that MoCo ultimately answers to MoFo which is their full owner, but tax law doesn't let a non-profit create a for profit to generate funnel commercial activity cash back to the non-profit as that defeats the purpose of having non-profits and giving them tax exemptions, so the Mozilla Foundation gets its money from fundraising while the Mozilla Corporation gets its money from commercial agreements. Those pools of money are almost entirely separate. Your overall point stands. MoCo ultimately answers to MoFo in the big picture.

[rgbrenner]

Yes, claiming they're separate is like saying Walmart and Walmart.com are separate. Except in that case, Walmart only owns 88% of the .com... so thats actually more independent than the Mozilla Corp.

[DiggyJohnson]

Honestly I didn't realize that you worked personally with the Mozilla Foundation, so I'll defer to you (and color myself surprised).

My apologies, and thanks for the information.

[fifteen1506]

Which one fired most Rust developers?

The foundation or the corporation?

[TheRealPomax]

Corp. The Foundation doesn't make products.