1. Mozilla Foundation is not a utility, nor a public service. It's not a charity nor a group of do-gooders.
It is a non-profit organisation. I don't know if US rules about non-profits require them to have some sort of "public good" element.
2. There is nothing wrong with the developers deciding to release versions tuned to typical users, and nothing wrong with them also doing the same for "big business / government / military." The policy shouldn't dictate that one way or another.
I don't think it does. The MF can release all sorts of versions should it choose to. But as I understand it, this policy applies to the "end-user" versions currently downloadable from mozilla.org, which we issue press-releases about and try and get our mothers to use.
Perhaps that should be more explicitly made clear.
3. It should be MF's policy to protect developers from the undue influence of businesses, governments, charities, do- gooders and other people who wish to influence the actions of those that do the work.
On the contrary - the MF is very interested in hearing the views of businesses, governments, charities and others - we call them "customers", and take their views into account when making software.
4. Who the software is created for is an open question, and it is strictly and definitively answered by the concept of open source - the software is created for anyone who can follow the rules in the licence.
That's two different definitions of the word "for". It's "for" everyone in the sense that anyone is permitted to download and use it. But it doesn't have to be "for" everyone in terms of its target market.
5. If there is a typical user who cannot make security
choices for themselves, that user can always refrain from
using Mozilla, and can always purchase a paid and insured
product from a supplier that looks after them.
Can you name an example of such a supplier today?
Gerv _______________________________________________ mozilla-crypto mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mozilla-crypto
