Mozilla Turns Firefox Towards Spyware: Firefox Labs Now Requires Data Collection
www.quippd.com
TL;DR: Mozilla is now enforcing data collection as a pre-requisite to access new features in Firefox Labs. This is backed by the Terms of Use that Mozilla introduced a few months ago.

TL;DR: Mozilla is now enforcing data collection as a pre-requisite to access new features in Firefox Labs. This is backed by the Terms of Use that Mozilla introduced a few months ago.

  • t3rmit3@beehaw.org
    58·
    1 day ago

    I am 100% on board with the author until they question it being open source, immediately after noting that users can take the source code and remove the telemetry function from it. They try to reconcile that contradiction by seemingly saying that since Firefox has the telemetry, a non-telemetry Firefox wouldn’t be Firefox, and that somehow makes FF not open-source?

    Is Firefox really open source if we have to submit to data collection to access features distributed under an open source license?

    Yes, ordinary end users can create a patch set to enable these features without needing to submit data to Mozilla - but that would clearly no longer be Firefox.

    Plenty of OSS licenses have rules baked into them about how you can use the code, or lay out obligations for redistribution. That does not negate their OSS-ness.

    “Is it really open source if I have to edit the source code I was given to remove a feature I don’t like?”

    I mean, yeah? What a program does is completely orthogonal to the rights granted by its source code license, which determines whether something is open-source.

    I am also not sure why they seem to think that this move either is meant to or is likely to push away technical users in favor of some supposed group of non-technical users who will go into the settings to manually enable a beta testing feature (Labs).

    Yes, (as the author notes) the purpose of a system is what it does, but the author isn’t presenting any evidence of what it’s doing vis a vis their claim of making technical users quit FF.

    Mozilla has plenty of issues, but I just don’t see “forces you to agree to telemetry if you want to participate in beta testing” as some canary in the coalmine of enshitiffication.

    • desentizised@lemmy.zip
      171·
      1 day ago

      We’ve been through this with Canonical when they tried to shove something into Ubuntu that would’ve only benefited them and nobody else. And I think this is the point. You’re suddenly not all about keeping the web free and open anymore. Suddenly this is a byproduct of your endeavors at best. And for anyone who does mind that shift you really have no other option but to switch to another browser. Today it may be just their beta-programme. Who knows about tomorrow.

      We don’t delete our Xitter accounts because the core product has changed, we leave the platform because nothing good can come from morally bankrupt leadership. Comparing X and Mozilla in that regard might be a stretch, but like you said, “Mozilla has plenty of issues”, these don’t get talked about nearly enough.

      • t3rmit3@beehaw.org
        14·
        1 day ago

        I understand it’s a slippery slope argument, which is why I didn’t find it particularly convincing.

        And if you’ve done bugfixing of software, you know that the data that users give you in reports is 90% of the time less useful than what you get out of crash reports or telemetry (yes, there are rockstar testers out there, but they’re the vast minority of users). Not all beta programs are there solely for the developers’ sake (some are there for e.g. third party devs to update integrations, etc), but this one seems to be, and that isn’t evidence of malice.

    • yoasif@fedia.ioOP
      56·
      1 day ago

      Plenty of OSS licenses have rules baked into them about how you can use the code, or lay out obligations for redistribution.

      “Is it really open source if I have to edit the source code I was given to remove a feature I don’t like?”

      I’m really not being aggressive about this position and I tried to express the ambiguity here. I think what irks me most are these things:

      1. Forking Firefox means it isn’t Firefox - yes, this means that the original was OSS, but you really need to be an expert to get at all the OSS code running on your machine. I mean that it is literally not Firefox, since your fork doesn’t have permission to use the trademarked name.
      2. If we think of the enabling functionality in Firefox as a virtual lock, breaking that lock is illegal under the DMCA. That seems very weird for code that is ostensibly open source.
      3. The addition of the Terms to Firefox seems like an additional restriction (a la Grsecurity, as I mentioned in the post) to the existing license in Firefox. Indeed, Mozilla says that the existing license isn’t “transparent” enough for Firefox users.

      Yes, the purpose of a system is what it does, but the author isn’t presenting any evidence of what it’s doing vis a vis their claim of making technical users quit FF.

      The purpose of the system being what it does is Firefox being spyware - you can’t escape it if you want to use Labs features.

      Love the feedback, and I while I think Firefox is open source, I do see the addition of software locks as backing away from OSS.

      I also went ahead and posted a small update with some additional clarifying thoughts - I don’t think it will satisfy you, unfortunately - but it might help people understand where I am coming from.

      • PhoenixAlpha@lemmy.ca
        9·
        1 day ago

        It’s really not ambiguous. Anyone can fork Firefox, make any changes they want, and release it with different branding. This is the goal of open source.

        The term you’re looking for is free software. By making this change Firefox is no longer respecting the freedom of their users. That’s the “F” in FOSS. It’s possible for Firefox to remain open source without being free software.

      • t3rmit3@beehaw.org
        101·
        1 day ago

        Forking Firefox means it isn’t Firefox - yes, this means that the original was OSS, but you really need to be an expert to get at all the OSS code running on your machine. I mean that it is literally not Firefox, since your fork doesn’t have permission to use the trademarked name.

        This is only relevant if you are planning to redistribute it after you make changes. You can make any and all changes you want to FF on your machine to remove telemetry, and you do not have to remove the branding.

        If we think of the enabling functionality in Firefox as a virtual lock, breaking that lock is illegal under the DMCA. That seems very weird for code that is ostensibly open source.

        Extending this argument would mean that it’s potentially illegal under DMCA to remove any protection mechanism that it would be ‘hacking’ to bypass during usage (e.g. SSL, authentication, etc) from any OSS project. Thats not the case, because an OSS license gives you explicit permission to modify the application.