Not a good look for Firefox. Third partners and device fingerprinting clearly mentioned in the documents.
The move is the latest development in a series of shifts Mozilla has undergone over the past year.
The gecko engine and Firefox forks, such as Tor, Mullvad, Librewolf, and Arkenfox, are stables of private, open source web browsing.
In fact, Mozilla’s is one of the few browser engines out there, in a protocol-heavy industry that many say only corporate or well-funded non-profits can reliably develop.
What is more, daily driving the more hardened-for-privacy Firefox derivatives can be frowned upon by many sites, including your bank and workplace.
Mozilla’s enshittification leaves the open source community without a good alternative to Firefox, after years of promoting it as a privacy-friendly alternative to spyware-cum-browser Chrome.
I refuted most of these points on this user’s post.
This is absolutely abnormal. No browser should require a license to my own data unless they plan on doing something with it.
No other FOSS includes this language and I would argue that Firefox executable is no longer FOSS. It’s now source available.
Yeah I am unconvinced of this line of thought. If I use (say) Kate Editor to edit a document, do the developers of Kate need a license to the content of that document in order to save it to my desktop? Since the text content is stored in a Qt widget does Qt also need such a license? Linux itself carries the data from the application to the disk, do the Linux developers (all of them?) also need a license?
They do not. Your use of the software, with software you “control” (edge cases of cloud compute, etc.) does not require you to grant a license to the software.