I haven't yet seen a campaign responding to this. Integrating a single, proprietary product in this way seems a first for Mozilla. Not only is it a closed and non-free 3rd-party service, there is apparently no way to pick an alternate like there is with the default search engine. Even if the integrated Pocket were to be disabled by default, thus requiring the user to explicitly choose it, it wouldn't be kosher, unless of course the result is Pocket embracing Mozilla's purported principles for all of its code.
Secondly, the recent addition of sharing services (for Tumblr, Twitter, etc.) would seem to be where Pocket belongs, so that it is up to the user to set it up. Such integration indicates to me that Mozilla is on the path of "competitive business decisions" while still distinguishing itself as a champion of freedom and openness. On 06/12/2015 10:51 AM, Mike Gerwitz wrote: > Has anyone seen any useful campaigns against Mozilla's integration of > Pocket? It's distributed with Firefox and is a third-party service that > is not only proprietary (in the sense that I cannot host my own instance > of it), but also serves proprietary JavaScript. > > Recent response from them here: > > http://venturebeat.com/2015/06/09/mozilla-responds-to-firefox-user-backlash-over-pocket-integration/ > > Perhaps the FSF would be interested in calling them out, along the same > lines as they did with Adobe and EME (although those are more > fundamental issues). I'd be willing to write something up. >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
