this post was submitted on 04 Mar 2025
162 points (100.0% liked)
Privacy
1763 readers
306 users here now
Welcome! This is a community for all those who are interested in protecting their privacy.
Rules
PS: Don't be a smartass and try to game the system, we'll know if you're breaking the rules when we see it!
- Be civil and no prejudice
- Don't promote big-tech software
- No reposting of news that was already posted
- No crypto, blockchain, NFTs
- No Xitter links (if absolutely necessary, use xcancel)
Related communities:
Some of these are only vaguely related, but great communities.
- !opensource@programming.dev
- !selfhosting@slrpnk.net / !selfhosted@lemmy.world
- !piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !drm@lemmy.dbzer0.com
founded 4 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Reading through the changes, they don't reassure me. If Mozilla isn't intending to monetize, modify or exploit my data in any way, then why do they think that they need any kind of a license for it? A piece of software I use for it's intended purpose, to send information from my computer to a server and back, doesn't need to seek a license to use that information.
There is simply no reason why Mozilla needs a "non-exclusive, royalty free worldwide" license to my content unless they plan on using it for their own purposes.
Firefox, running locally and under my direction, does not require a license as it is not a legal entity. It is a product.
Any argument from Mozilla to change the TOU without also removing the language for a license to your data is made in bad faith.
It's really that simple.