We might also wait to see what Gerv comes back with. As I say to my kids, there's no point arguing about it, look it up. Gerv is currently "looking it up" or at least trying to. Everything in between is conjecture and will become irrelevant once we hear from him.
It would be nice, though, to hear from anyone who dealt with the legal side of this to find out whether this was already taken into consideration during the planning stages. However employees are mostly all at the work week right now so we shouldn't expect to hear for a week (unless someone made following up on this one of their items for the week). On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Angly Cat <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 12:39:38 PM UTC+6, Ryan Kelly wrote: > > 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. > > > 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. > > > 1) Explain exactly where the problem is, so we can fix this incredibly > > serious betrayal of our users sovereignty and trust; or > > I accept the challenge. I will do my best trying to explain this as simple > as possible. > > According to the first paragraph of the Pocket(tm) ToS[1]: > > > By installing the Pocket(tm) application, visiting our website or > installing or using any of the Pocket Technologies, you are accepting these > terms of service. If you do not agree to these terms, please do not install > our application, access our website or use any of our products or services. > > It is UNCLEAR whether Pocket(tm) integration in Firefox counts as > so-called "Pocket Technologies". We suppose the worst: that is does. > Therefore the fact the one's Firefox contains Pocket(tm) integration > implies that the one agreed to Pocket(tm) ToS. That's the problem. > > Was my explanation of one of the problems with Pocket(tm) integrations > good enough for you to understand? > > I think that you, Ryan, acting as a mozillian, are being too aggressive > and owe us an apology. I suspect that you didn't even tried to read > Pocket(tm) ToS in the first place, because the problem we're talking about > is written in THE FIRST PARAGRAPH of that ToS. And it seems to me that > you're acting all like "lalala I'm not listening there's no problem you > were unable to explain that to me you trolls therefore there's no problem" > - as troll, in other words. > > [1] https://getpocket.com/tos > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
