New Terms of Usage of Mozilla have no steps with direct firefox competition

On Wednesday, Mozilla introduces legal update to Firefox usersand something feeling. I have read, and read the new Terms of Use And while most of this can be read like standard boilerplate from any tech company, have a new unexpected section:

If uploading or input information through Firefox, have event that gives us an unexpected information to navigate your use of Firefox.

The community have ALSO zeroed In this phrase, with those who contributed Ask directly What is that?

While I don’t meditate Why Mozilla wants this license without royalty on my intellectual property, I immediately thought if Gicrosoft Word is required – since it processing my words.

I can easily Know by an interlocutor of chatroom interlocutor that:

Hangtod sa gikinahanglan nga mahatagan ang mga serbisyo kanimo ug sa uban, aron mapanalipdan ka ug ang mga serbisyo, ug pag-ayo sa mga kopya sa intelihente sa Microsoft sa tibuuk kalibutan ug pag-apud-apod, ug pag-apud-apod, ug pag-apud-apod sa mga gamit sa komunikasyon sa imong sulud.

that seems too much. However, this copy is part of a section called “your content” which Microsoft clearly rejects the possession of your content:

Many of our services allow you to do, store or share your content or receive the material from others. We will not ask for possession of your content. Your content remains yours and you are responsible for it.

If that gives you the IK, or you want to avoid Ads to come to officeYou can try LibreOffice – not as a service term. Local, open software software.

Finally, Microsoft specifically rejected ownership of your content – something Mozilla didn’t do.

Is Mozilla here? Does it look awesome so? Mozilla has a Page of browser comparisonSo we can use the basis for comparison – let’s see data!

This will eliminate non-mentioning these changes come to heels in a Leadership Shakeup In Mozilla, with out of its very long Lizard Wrangler, Mitchell Baker and a new focus of “Try-all suffering“And” trustworthy, open source AI “.

The initial version of this post concludes that other vowser vendors do not give themselves the same rights to new intellectual terms of Mozilla’s new terms. In addition to reviewing and discussion, I know that the exceptions Google gave themselves for using the content of people just enough to drive a truck. In particular, the use of intellectual property of people to serve ads

However, there is a different thing here. Even if to Google is running, Mozilla’s is more expanding. Mind Google short notes, “Some of our services are designed to allow you to upload, submit your content. If you have to shared the content of our services and that the content is supposed to be lawful.” Google has given the right to the right to the rights of Progress when the content of online services are uploading or sharpening. More than Mozilla that is not yet through the size of the covered in Uploaded Mozilla services, by “Firefox – that each website, including your local network area!

Finally, I think the non-existence of a copyright license handed to other competitive browsers that users of software programs should provide software users with any software that communicated to user data. What are they exposure to responsibility?

Obviously if a grentlication grant is not found in terms, users do not automatically provide magdap Rights like allowing a print shop insulting multiple copies of their work for free after making a print. If such a provision is an automated, retailers should not write it in an agreement that must click. Vendors that make Explain such rights in their terms can expect them to be operative, as “Clickcrap” agreements are made to carry out.

ANSWERS

I have received a valuable feedback on this post, so I have more thoughts. At first, I could note that I was not a lawyer.

This is a careful change – it prevents cases

I got feedback that while the new verbiage might be less NEEDThis explains and restricts people and businesses from trying to sue Mozilla for software use as designed. An instance of this may be a person who serves Mozilla for uploading a file that they dragged in Firefox, which sent the file to a third party website.

It is not clear to me why Mozilla needs a license grant to protect itself from this lawsuit – The software worked as designed, and Mozilla having a license to the data doesn’t indemnify it from transmitting the data to the wrong place – if anything, the indemnification clause does that:

You agree to identify and hold the Mozilla and its associates will not harm any responsibility or claim from your use of Firefox, as per allowed by law.

The lack of a flexible, sub-licensed agreement means Mozilla cannot escape responsibility for shipping the file to the site “Error” by providing the “wrong” site of licenses. The cases I think of my thoughts to exercise is not as I’m single. It is difficult for me to imagine a case to prevent this phrase.

My interpretation can be perfectly wrong! If so, Mozilla can help know why this verbiage is needed – and what risks are forks and other vendors without this language in their harabor. If the forks put themselves in legal liability, Mozilla will make a community service to developers who develop developers who developers developers developers developers develop developers.

This is how the software works, Tos just reflects it

Another answer I got is that computers should copy data and change it to make valuable items in your data. Thus, Mozilla needs these rights to correctly describe how the background software works.

It feels ahistorical, like a change of how often we think about copyrights.

Wrote a story to Macwrite Give Claris rights to your story?

Remember that to show, edit, change (underline, italicize, fonts) the documents you write in MacWrite NEED Copying your document data is required from disk to remember CPU to indicate – multiple copying. Do Claris require your copyright rights to allow you to edit your software documents?

I think we know it’s not the case with claris (or having) a legal right to your intellectual property so you can use your story.

If that example felt esoteric – because we talk about prints, how are copies of the copy?

If I walk on a copy machine made by Konica Minolta and copy a proprietary document, I immediately give Konica Minolta a seed “Use” the copy? We know that many industry copiers have hard drive to them • Does that mean next disk to return to Konica Minolta for warranty service, they can use documents to more accurately copy the types of documents?

I don’t think that’s the case – it’s obvious that it’s a NEW right to teach. We do not think the use of a copier provides the Copier Company with the right to use your data outside of what is required to make the Copy. We don’t need the company involved in everything! In fact, I expect a responsible company to destroy hard drives with the customer data with them, or in the safe wipe it before it again.

To a more modern software example, guidance of GPL specifically explained using open software software to create non-free software Allowed – no thought used open software software to produce documents equally providing providing software rights to use your software function. Artworks created by Inkscape is not free to use Inkskape developers. It is clear that Open Software Software users not automatically assign the rights to developers to their work. Why do firefox different?

If you want this material, please think about Support me. You can Message me or follow This blog to the mobod.