On 23/06/2015 18:52, B Galliart wrote: > As a 15+ mozillian, you should remember this isn't this first time a > commercial product has been integrated/used in the open source browser. It > used to be that it wouldn't even compile without Motif. One key difference > was 100% of the Motif calls made where openly documented. Another key > difference is install browser didn't imply any privacy policy with the > OSF/Motif. > > Another commercial integration discussed during your 15+ years was Tamarin > from Adobe. Again, the API was 100% openly documented and no privacy policy > was implied with the contribution. > > Several open source projects benefit from commercial contributions to the > code. I don't think that really should be the issue. Rather, it is should > be how the contribution adheres to being open and transparent than fixating > on the author of the code. > > [..] > > Reading back through the thread, it seem more like people are debating if > it's usefulness to most should mean it can't be individually uninstalled by > some. Again, based on the wording of the ToS, disabling/removing the button > does not achieve the same thing as uninstalling. > > [..] > > I don't think anyone is debating how easy it is to hide the button. However, > this is not the same as not installing as stated in the Pocket Terms of > Service. > > [..] > > My point is that by including an at *install* activated Terms of Service and > undocumented/private API calls that they already are not in line with users' > interest. The ideals that have been promoted in the past should prohibit the > current integration. Hopefully Pocket is willing to work towards something > that adheres to those ideals but currently they have remained silent.
Seriously? I directly challenged you to explain how the Pocket Terms of Service are supposedly activated at install time, how they supposedly apply to every Firefox user regardless of whether they interacted with the Pocket button at all. You were not able to do so. You raised interesting points about what the terms might imply for users and developers after they agreed to them, and interesting points about the legal status of third-party re-implementations of the Pocket API. But none of it explained how these ToS might come to override the very clear open-source license under which the Pocket code inside Firefox is distributed. That the Terms themselves appear to claim they're activated at install time is a nonsensical circular argument, powerless until you actually do something that would require agreement to the terms in the first place. I'm not a lawyer. If there were even a hint of a problem here, you would not have to work hard to convince me of the possibility. But the closest you offered was this: > However, lets say, just for the sake of argument, that Pocket decides it want > a web site popularity/rank feature. Something similar to Google PageRank or > Alexa add-ons. As part of this (again for the sake of argument), the Pocket > integration links into the http/https submissions such a log of websites > visited is periodically compressed and transmitted to Pocket. > > I'm not claiming I have proof Pocket intends to do this. What I am claiming > is the current Terms of Service give themselves the permission to add this > type of behavior even if the user never clicks on the Pocket icon and > disables the icon from the bar. This is a meaningless hypothetical because *Pocket does not have the ability to do this even if they wanted to*. Nothing here has given Pocket the ability to make arbitrary changes to the code shipping in Firefox, and their own ToS are certainly not powerful enough to grant them that by fiat. Mozilla would have to accept accept such a change through our normal review procedures and include it in a normal Firefox release. The day such code shipped in Firefox would be the day I handed in my resignation, and I'm pretty confident I'm not alone in that regard. If you're really raising these points because you care about Mozilla and its mission, please either: 1) Explain exactly where the problem is, so we can fix this incredibly serious betrayal of our users sovereignty and trust; or 2) Stop spreading this unsubstantiated FUD. I'm completely serious about (1). If what you describe above really is happening to our users when they install this release, IMHO that's a chemspill of the highest order and we need to scramble all our resources to fix it. It's a serious enough allegation that I just can't bring myself to leave the claims above unchallenged. But I haven't seen any meaningful attempt to explain how that's actually happening. You just keep asserting it as though it were fact. Of course, the alternative is: 3) Continue trolling us with vague claims of automagic Terms of Service At which point I will attempt to just let this thread die... Ryan _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
