tegskywal...@hotmail.com wrote:
They are a "non-profit" that accepts money for the corporation. A
"non-profit" that will force your search engine to change depending on
their business deal.
Perhaps you and Bryan Lunduke need to learn more about incorporation and
non-profit status so you can put together a complete argument that makes
sense. In any case, your inchoate expression above doesn't in any way
clarify why we should question running Mozilla's free software. Even
Lunduke's vague non-argument about non-profits is one he says (around
7m53s) "doesn't make them [Mozilla] untrustworthy".
You and Lunduke use the word "force" to refer to how a free software
program runs, this makes no sense. If you don't like how Firefox sets your
default browser or anything else Firefox does, you have the freedom to
change it to make it behave how you wish. Even proprietary software
supporters wouldn't agree with your use of the word "force" here because
they'd point out that you have other options of browsers (for them,
switching to some nonfree browser where you have no software freedom is
considered to be an alternative). Ironic that with software freedom you
have more choices to make something you don't really need (trust in
Mozilla) come true.
If you read the link or watched the YouTube video, Mozilla has the power
to remotely force extensions and that resulted in the Mr. Robot
controversy.
I did read the article and watch Lunduke's video ramble. There's plenty of
anger there but very little substance, and it's all predicated on something
completely unnecessary -- trusting Mozilla. The Lunduke Show video
ramble[1] claims "Mozilla is not trustworthy" but never explains why one
needs to trust them in light of software freedom.
Running software one didn't write has always posed a threat to users.
Running code without fully knowing what that code does is inherently
dangerous. With nonfree software all one has is blind faith that the
proprietor won't screw them. But with free software users are granted
permission to run, inspect, share, and modify the code. Users can choose to
make sure it is acceptable to them. This means with free software one
doesn't need to trust the publisher.
Both the article and video seem more interested in trying to manufacture an
controversy out of very little; the solution is clear and has remained the
same for decades -- use your software freedom to vet the software you run,
and respect software freedom for others so they can help themselves and
possibly help you vet free software too.
It's not clear how this issue with Looking Glass rises to something more
serious than a bungled PR effort and poor communication from Mozilla.
TheVerge's article doesn't address this and neither does the ridiculously
long Lunduke YouTube video.
What's also telling is how neither the article nor the video you pointed us
to even get into the practical consequences of valuing software freedom for
its own sake. Inspecting and improving the code mean that we don't need to
trust Firefox.
Neither that article nor that video get into how nonfree software published
by known NSA partners (such as Apple's Safari, Google's Chrome, and
Microsoft's MSIE & Edge but there's no reason to limit this to web
browsers) pose a considerably greater threat to users than any free
software (regardless of publisher). I don't recall seeing anything railing
on them (neither in the specific sources you pointed us to nor in any other
posting) despite that those security problems are more serious because the
software is nonfree; users lack permission to inspect for the problem,
modify the software to fix the problem, or distribute a fix to others.
Can you provide a reference in the code for the Looking Glass add-on that
grants Mozilla the power you claim they have in light of the fact that one
can choose to edit out Looking Glass (if they're running a version of
Firefox where this is included) or not install Looking Glass (if they're
running a version of Firefox where Looking Glass is not included)?
Mozilla implemented the encrypted media extensions before it was a W3C
standard. They also fired an employee for not agreeing with them 100%
The first item conflicts with the freedom users have to make Firefox behave
as they wish, and the second item isn't clear why that should give one
cause to avoid using Mozilla's free software.
[1] Lunduke is pretty clueless here: consistently mispronouncing the word
"Mozilla" as "Motzilla" (there's no "t" in their name), directly
contradicting his own thesis (around 6m30s) in neighboring sentences: "This
is not an opinion on my part. I guess that my opinion is that they're not
trustworthy based on these facts...". He does this again in his own
ignorance of the terms "foundation" and "corporation" around 7m where he
seems to be finding fault with the difference between what he reads into
the terms he doesn't define versus what he describes to be the case (thus
vaguely complaining that Mozilla makes money and publishes free software
for hire).
