I don’t understand how they are supposed to “sell your data” if you just never use a Mozilla account and uncheck all the telemetry. Its not like they can secretly steal your data, since its Open Source.
It seems to me like just more FUD that Google is spreading to undermine our trust in free software.
Mozilla is changing the license used for the Firefox executable/binary. The TOS will be the governing license over Firefox, the branded browser executable. It will no longer be open source, as defined by the Open Source Initiative, as users are no longer free to use the software however they want. Firefox will now be source available.
The source code for the browser, is (at least as of this comment) FOSS under the MPL2 license. People are free to recompile the browser under a different name (e.g. Librewolf, Waterfox, etc.).
This is not FUD. I read through the new TOS, Acceptable Use Policy, and Privacy Policy. Since the browser executable was governed under the MPL2, there was little concern from the open source community. I made my judgement from those documents alone.
How can Firefox not be open source if its sources are under the MPL2 ?
It has always been the case that Firefox is a trademark and you can’t distribute it under that name. However if the code is open source the project is too.
As of today, the latest Firefox Version 135.0.1 Binaries are released under MPL 2, which is open source.
Whenever the terms are implemented, the Terms of Use will replace the MPL for the binaries. Open source has a strict definition and goes beyond source code.
The Terms of Use, as current proposed, would violate #5 (“No discrimination against Persons or Groups”) as the TOU allows for Mozilla to terminate your use of Firefox for any reason.
As a result, their binary moves from Open Source via the MPL to Source Available, via a proprietary license.
(sorry I took some time to come back to this) I’m not entirely sure the #5 of OSD would apply to the binary results (even though they are considered derivative work). GPL does restrict the license of the binary, but it seems MPLv2 allows licensing the binary differently as long as you don’t restrict the code further: