[yp_all]

Mozilla is an organization that has hundreds of millions in revenue but does not pay taxes?

How many employees?

What are their salaries?

Whatever, I don't care about that stuff.

Here's my question: Does Mozilla still portend to be "open source"?

Because if it was "open source" in the sense to which I am accustomed, then I could simply compile a Mozilla browser without DRM.

For example, if I never had any need to watch DRM, then it would make sense that I could compile the browser without the DRM code.

One beauty of open source is that the user can modify it.

She can trim off what she does not need.

Your comment repeatedly refers to "trust".

How does one achieve "trust" through closed source (e.g., the binary blob from Adobe)?

[bzbarsky]

> but does not pay taxes?

What makes you think Mozilla does not pay taxes? It most certainly pays taxes. I'll save you the web searching: https://static.mozilla.com/moco/en-US/pdf/Mozilla_Audited_Fi... is the latest set of financials that are public; see pages 4 and 5. For 2012, the Mozilla Corporation had $311 million in revenue, $208.5 million in expenses, and paid $37.6 million in income taxes. The federal corporate income tax rate in the US is 35%, fwiw, and California's is 8.84%, so it's not like Mozilla is trying particularly hard to evade that tax liability (0.4384 * (311 - 208.5 - depreciation) likely comes out pretty close to 37.6).

> then I could simply compile a Mozilla browser without DRM.

Sure. And you can and will be able to.

> How does one achieve "trust" through closed source (e.g., the binary blob from Adobe)?

Don't install it? The blob won't be shipped with the browser by default and will require explicit user action to install.

[yp_all]

"What makes you think Mozilla does not pay taxes?"

Corporate structure. (Mozilla Corp. is wholly owned subsidiary of Mozilla Foundation. Only Mozilla Corporation pays taxes.)

2008 IRS audit.

2012 settlement with IRS.

Perhaps a better statement would have been that Mozilla tries to avoid paying taxes.

Anyway, if what you say is true regarding compilation and exclusion of the DRM code then I'm not sure what everyone in thie thread is complaining about.

Now, how easy is it to compile Firefox these days?

I have not done it in years.

I gave up on X. (Following your exact advice, even with open source: "Don't install it.")

I use UNIX with no graphics layer and simpler text only browsers and even simpler TCP clients to retrieve content. Then if necessary I view it on graphical devices running closed source software.

The interesting thing is when I want to watch video, the last thing I need is a "browser". The core of the video player software I use is the ffmpeg libraries which have nothing to do with web browsers.

I only use HTTP (and other protocols) to transfer content (i.e., to request it), not to watch it.

I see no reason why a single application has to support both (request/transfer and playback).

Why video players have to support "streaming" or why "web browsers" have to play video are still open questions in my mind.

But that's just me. Stuck in the UNIX "one utility, one job" mindset.

[bzbarsky]

> Perhaps a better statement would have been that Mozilla tries to avoid paying taxes.

That flies in the face of what I'm seeing in the Mozilla Corporation financial statements.

> Now, how easy is it to compile Firefox these days?

It depends on which OS you're doing it on, but there are pretty detailed step by step instructions at https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Simple_Firefox_buil... and the things it links to. The biggest hassle is making sure that the various prerequisites (a compiler, some development libraries, autoconf 2.13, etc) are installed. On most modern Linux distros or Mac this is not a big deal. On Windows it's a slight bit more annoying.