Hi firefox-esr packagers,
what is happening wrt. what the Fediverse is full of: Mozilla now
requiring users to issue a licence to them (?!) for content input
into Firefox, completely(!) deleting its privacy promise, etc.
Is anything of that applicable to Debian, which gets the OSS code
from Firefox and builds that on OSS licence terms?
Is anything of that applicable to Mozilla services used by Firefox?
If so, are these removed from Debian firefox-esr packages?
References:
•
https://hachyderm.io/@dalias/114078137128127216
•
https://mastodon.social/@sarahjamielewis/114072293410465140
•
https://hachyderm.io/@joeyh/114078580513762598
vs.
https://mstdn.social/@BrodieOnLinux/114078303190853233
•
https://hachyderm.io/@joeyh/114078238284059938
•
https://mastodon.social/@sarahjamielewis/114078061987172475
•
https://infosec.exchange/@mttaggart/114077939111560597
•
https://corteximplant.com/@mircoxi/114075054152672333
•
https://infosec.exchange/@mttaggart/114074054311869646
• … and several older ones I cannot find (with reasonable
effort, i.e. invested 20′ already…) right now, and of
course thread toot context
I’d especially interested how a ToU change can affect a FOSS
software at all, given it’s either part of the licence (and thus
not acceptable for Debian main) or not (and thus unenforcable).
Could be ToS for some service it automatically uses (which Debian
packagers normally patch out as phoning home is unacceptable in
Debian).
https://corteximplant.com/@mircoxi/114075159839539040
says that Mozilla clearly considers the software subject to the
AUP for some reason… perhaps time for Iceweasel to rise again,
same codebase but without all that Mozilla policy binding.
Thanks in advance,
//mirabilos
--
"Using Lynx is like wearing a really good pair of shades: cuts out
the glare and harmful UV (ultra-vanity), and you feel so-o-o COOL."
-- Henry Nelson, March 1999
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)