On Monday, July 6, 2015 at 11:59:35 AM UTC-5, Angly Cat wrote: > Disclaimer: I'm a bit confused with your wording. Therefore disregard my > message if "Pocket TOS do not prevent you using Pocket in a commercial > environment" means "Pocket TOS do not prevent you using Firefox (except > integrated Pocket) in commercial way" rather than "Pocket TOS do not prevent > you using Pocket (integrated in Firefox) in commercial way". > > I searched the word "commercial" in Pocket(tm) ToS (Posted May 28, 2014)[1] > and found 6 matches: > 3 (three) matches are about personal, non-commercial use; > 1 (one) match is about them granting a user personal non-commercial rights; > 1 (one) match is about them explicitly prohibiting any use of the Pocket > Technologies in commercial way; > And the last 1 (one) match is about the only way to use the Pocket > Technologies in commercial way: > > > If you want to make commercial use of any of the Pocket Technologies, you > > must enter into a separate written agreement with us in advance. > > Feel free to verify my words. So, sadly, unless you're officially from "Read > It Later, Inc.", your assurance means nothing. > > [1] https://getpocket.com/tos
I am also confused about the wording. However, in-between the lines this reads like it is coming from someone that knows something more but is unable to talk about it publically at the moment. I think we both agree that to address issues like the USA's CFAA requires the ToS itself to be updated. Also, requiring permission in writing is still a form of "discrimination against a field of endeavor" which OSD #6 would prohibit. But it might be implied that eventually that a ToS update is exactly what will happen. The big picture question is why has it reached this point of having to discuss this at all on the mailing list? Why didn't Mozilla Manifesto #7 result in a check-list for the integration that required OSD #6 compliance to be part of the integration process? The answer to that seems to be provided in two places: (1) Mike Connor's post in this thread on June 17th makes it clear the Mozilla Foundation's "master goal" puts Mozilla Manifesto Principle #9 as the only priority and throws out the rest. (2) Mike Connor's statements seem to be backed by Justin Dolske's actions of marking the issue related to OSD compliance as hidden due to "advocacy" and then close the integration process as completed. This would seem to violate Mozilla Manifesto #7 and Manifesto #8 if those still mattered. But don't degrade the assurance now given to the status of meaning nothing. It is probably a baby step forward. The bigger question is if overall are we taking steps forward in the grand scheme towards re-affirming the entire Mozilla Manifesto for all integrations to come or just putting a medical wrap on the current issue. For that, I guess only time will tell but I will take every little "win" that we can get. However, if there is now Mozilla Foundation employees that have framed principle #9 in gold and have the rest printed on toilet paper much like Mike Connor and Justin Dolske seem to, then I think we will be stuck taking two steps back for every step forward. Even then, I would not go as far as to say the Mozilla Foundation or Firefox mean nothing, they just will mean something very different than what the Mozilla Manifesto says. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
