[do_not_redeem]

Somehow I use pens, emacs, and curl without sublicensing my IP to BIC, the GNU Project, or Daniel Stenberg.

Why does Mozilla need to be granted a license to my IP to submit form fields, but curl doesn't? These are just tools, used by me personally. I'm not hiring Mozilla. Mozilla is not a party to my use of their tool.

[db48x]

I totally agree with you that this is stupid. But apparently they feel that implicit permission isn’t enough.

[Arnt]

At a guess, something to do with "hiring" Mozilla to do phishing protection in forms, perhaps in-browser, more likely mostly-in-browser.

[wtallis]

Don't guess. Read Mozilla's Privacy Notice: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/firefox/

There's a lot more in there than phishing protection.

[mintplant]

Because Mozilla has a dedicated legal team and larger organizational exposure.

[do_not_redeem]

Bic had €2.233 billion* in revenue in 2022. Is that not large enough to matter?

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bic_(company)

[mintplant]

Physical products aren't relevant here.

[wtallis]

Do you really, honestly believe that the only reason Mozilla wrote terms of use that way but cURL doesn't is that Mozilla has more or better lawyers? Do you actually find it hard to believe that the legal terms attached to cURL are entirely sufficient an that Mozilla is using different terms because Mozilla is planning to take meaningfully different actions with respect to user data?

Mozilla has "larger organizational exposure" precisely because they're tracking users and packaging up that data for sale.

[mintplant]

> Do you really, honestly believe that the only reason Mozilla wrote terms of use that way but cURL doesn't is that Mozilla has more or better lawyers?

Yes. Well, that, and Firefox talks to backend services (updates, safe browsing, etc) to do its job for the user, whereas cURL doesn't.

> Do you actually find it hard to believe that the legal terms attached to cURL are entirely sufficient an that Mozilla is using different terms because Mozilla is planning to take meaningfully different actions with respect to user data?

I've known a lot of Mozilla folks for a long time, so, yes.

[mimasama]

> backend services

Except when you actually read the ToU the controversial, unnecessary license doesn't even talk about Mozilla's services at all.

"It also includes a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license for the purpose of doing as you request with the content you input in Firefox."

[gsich]

As does Microsoft, yet their VS Code does not require that.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Because Mozilla has a dedicated legal team and larger organizational exposure

Sorry, this is BS. Nobody was going to win shit from Mozilla for typing a URL into their browser that runs locally on their machine. Where they might have gotten in trouble is with their telemetry (e.g. Pocket), but that’s sort of screaming to the problem that they’re pivoting to spyware.