this post was submitted on 04 Mar 2025
101 points (99.0% liked)
Privacy
1187 readers
373 users here now
Protect your privacy in the digital world
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 nice, civil and no bigotry/prejudice.
- No tankies/alt-right fascists. The former can be tolerated but the latter are banned.
- Stay on topic.
- Don't promote proprietary software.
- No crypto, blockchain, etc.
- No Xitter links. (only allowed when can't fact check any other way, use xcancel)
- If in doubt, read rule 1
Related communities:
- !opensource@programming.dev
- !selfhosting@slrpnk.net / !selfhosted@lemmy.world
- !piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
founded 3 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.