On 19/06/2015 14:00, B Galliart wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at 11:52:37 PM UTC-5, Ryan Kelly wrote:
>> On 18/06/2015 13:56, B Galliart wrote:
>>
>> "Firefox is now a pocket application" is IMHO a completely unreasonable
>> conclusion to jump to, unless one is deliberately looking for gotchas
>> with which to hate on this integration.
>
> This is not out of hate. The gotchas appear regardless of if you love or
> hate the integration. It is just the nature of how the ToS is currently
> written.
> [...]
> I glad we are both in agreement on this. I wish you could see that this is
> not a result of hate of integration of feature but instead out of respect for
> Mozilla's previously stated mission.
> [...]
> I still understand that you probably still believe I am saying this out of
> same hate of Pocket(TM). I doubt I can change your mind about that.
> [...]
> There has to be some common ground that can be reached where looking for
> gotchas is acceptable instead of "hate." Everything about the Web We Want
> open letter was statements of common web "gotchas." Was Mozilla operating on
> the basis of hate then?
FWIW, I apologize for my choice of words with "hate on this integration"
above. I'm sure you're "deliberately looking for gotchas" because you
want Mozilla to succeed in its stated mission, not because you're hoping
for us to fail.
> The only place in the Terms of Service which seems to define the term
> "Pocket(TM) application" is here:
> "The pocket software application, supporting files and accompanying
> documentation (referred to collectively herein as the 'Pocket application')
> is provided solely for your personal, noncommercial use."
> My understanding is pktApi.js is a supporting file provided by Read It Later,
> Inc. Based on the wording, the Terms of Service is claiming Firefox now fits
> what it defines to be a "Pocket(TM) application" and as such the user is
> requested to read and agree to Pocket(TM)'s ToS and Privacy Policy "before
> [they] install."
> [...]
> Feel free to explain in your own words what exactly the Pocket(TM) Terms of
> Service is defining and how it applies now that Pocket(TM) is a non-optional
> install part of the core of Firefox.
I don't have any deep thoughts on what the Pocket(TM) Terms of Service
do or do not define. I'm sure there are things downstream of ToS
agreement that it would be great to get clarification on.
My question is simply: by what mechanism would these ToS come to apply
to a user just because they have installed Firefox?
If "the ToS themselves say that they apply" is all it takes, then AFAICT
we've discovered a meta-circular licensing mechanism of unprecedented
virality, strong enough to override the pretty clear open-source
licensing applied to the code you claim will trigger it.
> That is good to know. Is there anyplace as part of Mozilla's effort to be
> transparent where Mozilla's lawyers provide the details or synopsis of the
> Terms of Service documents the reviewed?
>
> Also, how does Mozilla lawyers take into account the impact of a new
> currently unpublished Privacy Policy that goes into effect 30 days after
> publication? Are they continually monitoring and reviewing the documents as
> they are updated? Are they able to always accomplish a full review in less
> than 30 days? What is Mozilla's stated policy/method for giving notice to
> the impacted users when a change no longer adheres to Mozilla's mission?
And just to be clear, I'm not ignoring the rest of the questions you
asked in your reply - I just won't pretend I'm able to speak to them
with any semblance of authority.
Cheers,
Ryan
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
