

Well, it will always be there as long as Firefox is also there.
Well, it will always be there as long as Firefox is also there.
The post sounds like it the initial terms weren’t thought to be broader than the current ones, but that that apparently wasn’t clear when they were read by regular people. As a non-lawyer, it seems entirely possible to me that the legal ramifications of both versions are the same, as often things that will read one way to me, turn out to actually mean more specific things in a legal context.
Could some savvy code-reader go through it to see if something about the data collection has changed?
Yeah, I think it’s telling that it’s been a while now and nobody has pointed to any suspicious code.
There shouldn’t be the need to clear a name, because you shouldn’t be smearing someone’s name who’s giving away their work. It’s fine to distrust it, but then just don’t use the software.
Probably not what you’re after, but if it’s really just about PDFs, note that Firefox has an excellent PDF reader built-in. Oh, but I guess a browser extension can’t access that?
I’m not sure which button you’re talking about, but if it’s the one in the sidebar, click “Customise sidebar”, and then uncheck “AI chatbot”.
By now you would’ve expected someone to have pointed out what code is actually collecting that data that’s supposedly sold.
They’re saying they want something like Synaptic (mostly for its “multi-select”, apparently, though I’m not sure what that means?), but have it support AppImages, Flatpaks, Snaps, etc., instead of just Debs like Synaptic does.
Can I just say: hats off to the bug archaeology you’ve done there :)
Heh yes, but for the purposes of this post I wanted to focus on why it wasn’t just another distro recommendation, but one tailored specific to their use case :) (I don’t even use Kinoite myself, so it’s extra genuine.)
If you do a reinstall, I’d recommend going with a Kinoite install. It’s like regular Fedora KDE, except that it avoids this risk of traces of past experiments everywhere.
thelibre.news is woefully underappreciated.
Ha, well, if my single-digit-downloads (all by me) NPM module is influential enough to set precedent, then I’d consider that a success.
Yeah I get that point, and so my point is that if the use case is important enough that they’d be able to justify allocating that personnel, I use the AGPL to give them that nudge. When it’s just some non-critical component, then I’ll just slap an MIT on it and be done with it.
My rule-of-thumb is: is the licence going to make things better for users? In other words, I try to predict whether a company would just not use my AGPL-licensed code, or would potentially contribute back. If they wouldn’t, I don’t really care and rather my code at least gets used to build something presumably useful.
No worries! Thanks for updating your comment :)
If you think you know what happened or the context, you probably don’t. Please don’t make assumptions. Thank you.
Someone might want to check that, because IIRC it was someone else’s alter ego.
No worries, thanks again!
So what I think -but again, not a lawyer- is that the previous version also didn’t grant Mozilla ownership of your data. For example, maybe there was already a legal limit to what rights the ToS can transfer to Mozilla, and the new version just re-iterates the existing law?