[mangecoeur]

Well thats a totally click-bait and misleading title. The essence of a walled garden is that it's hard to get in, and if you're not let in then you lose out. Mozilla only require signing by them or by someone else, which given the proliferation of malware is hard to see as a bad thing, especially given the privileged access granted to addons.

If you're too stubborn to let Mozilla sign it AND too lazy to do it yourself then that's your problem - you have no inalienable right to demand that people run your code if you can't be bother to secure it. However you are never locked out of providing mozilla addons, you can still supply whatever you like.

Also, Why did this piece bother to quote the random verbal vomit of some internet commenters? What is that supposed to show? That some people online are rude and ignorant? Frankly there's quite a bit of FUD in this thing, like asking if devs can trust that moving from Dev versions to production will break their code - pretty much the whole point of Mozilla's development model in iterating and providing developer editions is to ensure that doesn't happen.

[blackoil]

Some people will see walled garden as one with few gates and a sentry controlling who can enter, e.g. Ios app store is not very difficult to enter in as a million apps have entered, but if apple does not agree, you cannot publish the app.